大乘法苑義林章 4

English (machine translation) 4

Language: English

4.2

Chapter on Taking Refuge and Paying Homage

The characteristics of paying homage are distinguished through six gates: first, differences among the teachings; second, explanation of the various names; third, identifying the essential nature; fourth, clarifying the intention of paying homage; fifth, the distinction between the two kinds: paying homage and taking refuge; sixth, analysis through various gates.

4.4

First, differences among the teachings: There are those that are solely bodily homage and not vocal or mental. The Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya states: 'Kowtowing and touching the feet, hence it is called paying homage.' Bringing one's own head to the ground to touch the other's feet is therefore called paying homage, because of the depth of reverent devotion. Comparing body to speech, the body is weighty and speech is light; by raising the weighty to express sincerity, it is made clear that the light can be emitted; and since the body arises from the mind, it is established without being stated; thus it is solely bodily homage. Or there is that which is solely vocal homage and not bodily or mental. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra states: 'The elder Ratnākara praised [the Buddha] in verse, saying: "Having long accumulated boundless pure deeds, / You have attained vast and superior renown; / Therefore I bow my head to the Great Śramaṇa, / The Guide who reveals the subtle path of tranquility."' Although initially there was bodily salutation, subsequently there was only speech; hence it is called vocal homage and is not subsumed under body or mind. There is no passage stating solely mental homage and not bodily or vocal, for to signify and cause others to know, it must be formed in sound and form. There is also an explanation saying: The Lotus Sūtra says, 'Because with a deep mind they are mindful of the Buddha and cultivate the pure precepts,' which is precisely mental homage. Or there is bodily and vocal homage, but not mental. The introduction to the Abhidharmasamuccaya-vyākhyā says: 'I pay homage to such Greatly Awakened Honored Ones, / The peerless marvelous Dharma, and the assembly of true āryas.' That treatise explains: 'Now in this verse, praising the supreme virtues without distortion, I reverently offer salutation with my head. The mental action is precisely that which can produce volition; it is established without being stated, mentioning only body and speech.' Or there is bodily and mental homage, but not vocal. The Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya states: 'Arising a good mind produces agreeable fruit; paying homage with the whole body.' Raising the weighty bodily action is fundamentally set in motion by the mind; vocal action is implicitly also homage. There is vocal and mental homage, but not bodily. The Śrīmālā-sūtra states: 'All with a pure mind / Praise the Buddha's true virtues: / The Tathāgata's marvelous physical body...' up to '...Paying homage to the Inconceivable.' Although bodily salutation occurred previously, now when praising it is solely vocal and mental. Or all three karmas are homage together. Vasubandhu's preface to the Mahāyānasaṃgraha-bhāṣya states: 'Therefore, with utmost sincerity in body, speech, and thought, / I repeatedly cultivate undistorted salutation of taking refuge.' The Xianyang shengjiao lun also states: 'I now, with utmost sincerity, first praise and pay homage.' Utmost sincerity is mental action, praise is vocal, and paying homage is bodily; hence it pervades all three karmas.

4.5

Second, explaining the various names: Explaining according to worldly convention: ji means reaching; shou means head; bringing the head to the ground is therefore called jishou (kowtow). This means kneeling and bowing with the head reaching the ground; hence the Abhidharmakośa states: 'Kowtowing and touching the feet, hence it is called paying homage.' Bending one's own honored head to touch the other's lowly feet is called jishou. The Kośa's intention is to take jishou, which is a specific name for bodily action, as homage (lǐ), which is the general name for homage in the three karmas. The Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya is also like this: paying homage with the whole body is also jishou. As for koutou, bringing the hands to the head is therefore called koutou. As for jingli (paying homage): reverence is called jing; ritual decorum is called li. Truly giving rise to earnest sincerity and bending in deportment with praise, one expresses the way of reverence and marks the name of paying homage. Moreover, arousing an earnest and pure mind and spurring superior karma, one expresses sincerity and reverent refuge; hence it is called paying homage, which pervades the three karmas. When various teachings say jishou, by means of the bodily action of jishou they express the paying of homage across the three karmas. Its essence is just one thing; one should not merely rely on worldly convention. The ancients said nanmu, which is precisely paying homage. It should be pronounced nāmò or nàmò, so it is not separately explained. As for guīyī (taking refuge), it means turning to in reverence and relying on for refuge, which is not what is being clarified here. If one says bàntán or bàntí, here it means jishou (kowtowing), and also means lǐbài (prostrating); it is also not jingli; it is erroneously named hénán (vandanā).

4.6

Third, identifying the essence: the essence is just the three karmas. In all there are three volitions: namely, deliberative volition, determinative volition, and motiving-issuing superior volition. Motiving-issuing superior volition directly initiates [actions of] body and speech. The essence of bodily and vocal karma consists of the previous two volitions. Although the essence of mental karma extends across all three natures, we here take wholesome volition as the essence of that which pays homage. In the Mahāyāna, [the actions of] body and speech, except in the fruit of Buddhahood, are in their essence exclusively indeterminate; therefore, as the essence of the two karmas, one only takes the issuing volition. There is also an explanation stating: their essence is exclusively shame and embarrassment, where revering and honoring the virtuous and wholesome is called shame, and looking down upon and rejecting violence and evil is embarrassment. We now adopt the former explanation. The two aggregates of form and formations serve as their intrinsic nature, for body and speech are the aggregate of form, while mental karma is the aggregate of formations. The form that issues body and speech, and the volition that takes the name of form, produce movement in the mind; hence they are named mental karma and are subsumed under the two aggregates. Correspondingly, they also extend to seeds, because the two karmas of body and speech possess unmanifest form. Their states also extend to the form base and sound base.

4.7

Fourth, clarifying the intention of paying homage: Master Gopa states in his Commentary on the Viṃśikā: "In order to show that the Great Master possesses the divine eye, one pays homage through bodily karma; because he possesses the divine ear, one pays homage through vocal karma; because he possesses the knowledge of others' minds, one pays homage through mental karma. As stated in the Vinaya: if one is in a bright place, one pays homage through bodily karma, because one can be seen; if one is in the dark but nearby, one pays homage through vocal karma, because one can be heard; if one is in the dark and far away, one pays homage through mental karma, because one can be neither seen nor heard. Furthermore, this shows that paying homage is the cause of the three wheels: homage through bodily karma is the cause of the wheel of supernormal transformations; homage through vocal karma is the cause of the wheel of discerning speech; homage through mental karma is the cause of the wheel of instruction. Moreover, they are also the causes of the supernormal faculties of psychic power, knowledge of others' minds, and the destruction of the outflows. Furthermore, it shows the generation of complete goodness in the three karmas, because wholesome three karmas fully subsume all courses of karma. In addition, one must rely on power and avail oneself of great spiritual majesty; if one's veneration is not complete, one will not fully access this majesty."

4.8

Fifth, the distinctions between paying homage and taking refuge: there are, in brief, seven explanations. First, taking refuge is based on gravity, being restricted to body and speech alone; paying homage extends to lighter [acts], encompassing both mind and form, because it applies to all three karmas. Second, the object of taking refuge is broad, necessarily requiring complete refuge [in all three] to constitute karma; paying homage may be broader, achieving its purpose even if one relies on just one. Only when one completely takes refuge in the Three Jewels is it taking refuge; paying homage to just a single Honored One is already paying homage. Third, taking refuge has a fixed limit, for the uttering of the vow must extend to the end of the future; paying homage is only conditioned on offering sincerity and forming a thought. Because of their permanence versus transience, the words of taking refuge are: 'I vow from this life to the end of the future limit'; as for all who pay homage, raising the mind in devout reverence is itself paying homage. Fourth, taking refuge involves earnest emotion, carrying unmanifest [karma] to serve as refuge; paying homage extends through the mind, or may take only manifest [karma] as its essence. Taking refuge necessarily possesses manifest and unmanifest [karma], whereas merely having wholesome manifest [karma] constitutes paying homage. Fifth, the meaning of taking refuge is weighty, necessarily combining body and speech; paying homage extends to lighter [acts], where a single one is sufficient. Sixth, taking refuge carries phenomenal marks, residing only in the desire and form [realms]; the meaning of paying homage extends broadly, also pervading the formless [realm]. Seventh, the meaning of taking refuge is superior, being fulfilled even when contemplating ultimate truth; paying homage extends to the subtle, esteeming the virtuous and wholesome and encompassing this as well. Serene clarity is faith, while taking refuge and paying homage are karma; their essential natures are vastly distinct, so there is no need to debate them against each other.

4.9

Sixth, distinguishing through various categories: in brief, there are twelve categories. Chapter 64 of the Yogācārabhūmi states: First, one may take refuge only after examining the object of refuge in five respects: 1. bodily karma is pure; 2. vocal karma is pure; 3. mental karma is pure; 4. raising great compassion toward sentient beings; 5. accomplishing the unsurpassed Dharma. Second, how many refuges are there? The answer is three: namely, the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Saṅgha. Third, because of four conditions there are only this many, neither fewer nor more: 1. because the Tathāgata's nature is supremely tractable and wholesome; 2. because he possesses skillful means to tame what can be tamed in all aspects; 3. because he is endowed with great compassion; 4. because he does not take delight in material offerings, but generates joy through the offering of correct practice. For these reasons, the Dharma established by him and the assembly of his disciples may all be taken as refuge. Fourth, one is said to be capable of taking refuge in accordance with four conditions: 1. knowing the qualities; 2. knowing the distinctions; 3. making one's own vow; 4. no longer declaring that there is any other Great Master. Fifth, one should know that taking refuge gives rise to four correct practices: 1. associating with good spiritual friends; 2. hearing the true Dharma; 3. proper attention; 4. practice in accordance with the Dharma. If one accomplishes these four correct practices, one is truly said to take refuge. Furthermore, there are four practices: 1. the sense faculties not being distracted; 2. receiving the precepts; 3. feeling pity for sentient beings; 4. diligently cultivating offerings before the Three Jewels from time to time. Sixth, distinguishing between cause and fruit: Taking refuge pertains to the causal [stage], not to the fruit of Buddhahood. The Buddha has nothing to take refuge in, so the one who can take refuge is also absent. The Śrīmālādevī-sūtra says: "Śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas have fear and have refuge." That which is a refuge does not seek a refuge; the Tathāgata has no fear and has no refuge. Homage may be paid [by a Buddha], as in the Brahmajāla-sūtra where Śākyamuni also bows to Rocana. The Lotus Sūtra also says: "I heard the noble lion's / deep, pure, subtle and wondrous voice, / joyfully crying 'Namo Buddhāya'." Hence, homage exists. Seventh, distinguishing between having outflows and being without outflows: Bodily and vocal [karmas] have outflows only, while mental karma extends to being without outflows. Because one is in the causal stage prior to the seventh ground; or, in the causal stage all three karmas extend to being without outflows. Because there is paying homage within the subsequently attained gnosis; or, because in the Buddha's body all are without outflows. Eighth, distinctions regarding the nine grounds: Vocal karma reaches up to the first dhyāna, because investigation and analysis exist there. Bodily karma reaches up to the fourth dhyāna, because bodily karma exists there. Mental karma extends through the nine grounds, because wholesome volition exists there. From the second dhyāna onward, although [sounds] are initiated by borrowing speech, they are not of a wholesome nature, and thus are not the essence of vocal homage. Bodhisattvas prior to the grounds and noble beings of the formless [realm] listen to the Dharma beside the Buddha, so there is mental manifestation. Taking refuge is not like this, because it does not issue unmanifest [form]. Ninth, distinguishing among the three natures: It is subsumed exclusively under the wholesome nature. Esteeming the virtuous and wholesome must be accompanied by shame and embarrassment; because it is exclusively of a wholesome nature, both the innately acquired and the applied types are obtained. That it encompasses the three of hearing, contemplation, and cultivation is also completely reasonable. Tenth, distinguishing among the three divisions: Its essence consists solely of form and formations. Its retinue consists of the five aggregates. Its essence is a single realm and base, namely the dharma realm and dharma base. If it is manifest, it consists of three realms and bases, namely form, sound, and dharmas. Its retinue is subsumed under four bases and ten realms. The four bases are the bases of form, sound, mind, and dharmas. The ten realms are form, sound, the seven mental realms, and the dharma realm. Eleventh, due to five causes and conditions, the other devas and the like cannot be taken as refuge; only the Three Jewels are the true place of refuge. 1. Due to physical marks: because those devas cannot be seen and therefore have no social decorum; because their forms are fierce and violent, causing terror; because they practice negligence, possessing greed and attachment; because they abandon others, lacking compassion; and because they do not understand what should and should not be done, failing to comprehend the true reality. The Tathāgata's physical marks, because they can be visibly seen, have social decorum; because his form is serene, it causes no terror; because he lacks indulgence, he is free from greed and attachment; because he never abandons the work of benefiting sentient beings, he possesses compassion; and because he fully understands what should and should not be done, he thoroughly comprehends the true reality. Furthermore, there are five marks by which the Buddha can be taken as refuge: taking bodhi for the benefit of sentient beings; being able to skillfully turn the true Dharma eye; benefiting sentient beings whether benefactors or enemies with an impartial mind; renouncing greed for family and remaining eternally tranquil; and being able to skillfully resolve all doubts. 2. Due to intrinsic nature: The devas are accompanied by outflows and their nature is not tractable and wholesome, so how could they transform others? The Tathāgata is free from outflows and his intrinsic nature is tractable and wholesome; hence he can transform beings. 3. Due to action: The devas indulge in desires, so unwholesome karma that harms sentient beings can be found [in them]. The Buddha dwells in dhyāna, so wholesome karma that can benefit sentient beings can be found [in him]. 4. Due to the nature of things: All mundane and supramundane auspicious and flourishing achievements are without exception obtained through one's own effort. Without one's own effort, even if one serves the devas, they cannot be obtained. Therefore, even without serving devas, if one merely exerts one's own effort, one will certainly obtain them. The Buddha is not like this: he possesses great spiritual majesty and is able to act as a good friend, skillfully encouraging others to cultivate themselves and thereby obtain flourishing achievements. 5. Due to cause and effect: Although those divine bodies are obtained through divine karma, whether they are obtained due to making offerings to devas or obtained without cause, both involve faults. As that treatise states: "Twelfth, one who receives the refuges obtains four virtues: 1. obtaining vast merit; 2. obtaining great joy; 3. obtaining samādhi; 4. obtaining great purity. Furthermore, one obtains four virtues: 1. perfection of great protection: due to taking refuge in the Three Jewels, the noble assemblies of the ten directions all protect them, causing them to be free from obstacles and difficulties; 2. all kinds of hindrances of false faith and understanding are mitigated or permanently eradicated; 3. obtaining entry into the great assembly of those who are intelligent, of correct conduct, and properly attained—namely, fellow practitioners of the pure life of the Great Master; 4. being pure in faith regarding the noble teaching, the devas rejoice and regard them with affection, exclaiming: 'Because we accomplished the three refuges, we fell from that place and were born here. Since these people have now accomplished them and mostly abide in the refuges, they will also come into our common category.'" The sixth chapter of the Xianyang also says the same; although there are minor differences, the general meaning is not different. Regarding these doctrinal categories, some are supported by authentic teachings, while others are inferred through reasoning and have not been seen in previous transmissions; let broadly learned scholars examine and correct them.

4.10

Chapter on the Four Foods

4.11

The four foods are distinguished through five sections in total: 1. distinguishing the names; 2. identifying the essence; 3. revealing the characteristics; 4. justification and classification; 5. various categories.

4.12

First, distinguishing the names has two parts: first, listing; second, explaining. These are explained at length in chapters 57, 66, and 94 of the Yogācārabhūmi, chapter 1 of the Xianyang, chapter 5 of the Abhidharmasamuccaya, chapters 3 and 10 of both versions of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, and chapter 4 of the Cheng weishi lun. First, listing the names: Chapter 57 and others state: "As the sūtra says, there are four kinds of foods, all of which can nourish the sense faculties and primary elements. What are the four foods? How do they nourish the sense faculties and primary elements? Answer: food in mouthfuls, food of contact, food of mental volition, and food of consciousness," and so on in detail. Second, explaining the names: Explaining the general name, chapter 66 says: "Because they sustain sentient beings and prevent them from deteriorating." The Cheng weishi lun says: "These four can sustain the bodies and lives of sentient beings, preventing them from being severed or deteriorating; hence they are named foods." 'Four' is a numerical term, so this is a compound containing a numeral. Explaining the specific names: 'Piece' (kavaḍa) means material portions, which are received piece by piece and can sustain body and life. The piece is itself the food; this is a karmadhāraya compound. Formerly, people spoke of 'morsel' (tuān), meaning what can be rolled into a ball or grasped in the hand, establishing it as 'morsel food'. This meaning is completely mistaken: the character tuān does not mean 'to ball up' (tuán), and beverages like water cannot be rolled into a ball; how could it be named 'morsel'? Therefore it should be named 'piece'. 'Contact' (sparśa) means touching upon, causing the mind and mental factors to touch the object together; it is designated by the name 'contact'. Contact is itself the food; this is also a karmadhāraya compound. Regarding 'food of mental volition' (manasañcetanā): 'mind' (manas) refers to the mind base, the name of the relying consciousness. 'Volition' (cetanā) means activity, the associated mental factor. Volition associated with the mind is called 'mental volition'; this is a tatpuruṣa compound of proximity. Volition reliant on the mind is a tatpuruṣa compound of dependency. Mental volition is itself the food; this is also a karmadhāraya compound. 'Consciousness' (vijñāna) means discernment; consciousness is itself the food; this is also the designation of a karmadhāraya compound.

4.13

Second, identifying the essential nature [of nutriment]. Fascicle sixty-six [of the Yogācārabhūmi] states: 'Material nutriment should be said to be subsumed under the bases of odor, taste, and tangibles.' The Cheng weishi lun states: 'It refers to the three—odor, taste, and tangibles—bound to the desire realm.' This statement is intended to show that only the three—odor, taste, and tangibles bound to the desire realm—which provide nourishment when undergoing transformation and disintegration, are called nutriment, and not all [tangibles etc.] below, nor the tangibles and so forth above. Fascicle ninety-four states: 'All sāsrava contact can serve as nutriment for joy and pleasure.' The Weishi also states: 'It refers to sāsrava contact that, when apprehending an object in general, takes in joy, pleasure, and beneficial equanimity, thus capable of performing the function of nutriment.' This statement is intended to show that contact associated with the eight sāsrava consciousnesses across the three realms, when taking in and benefiting joy, pleasure, and beneficial equanimity, and thereby benefiting the body, is the essential nature of contact-nutriment. If it induces suffering, grief, and non-beneficial equanimity, the essence of contact is not nutriment, because it does not provide nourishment or benefit. Therefore, the Weishi states: 'Although this contact is associated with all consciousnesses, the meaning of nutriment is especially prominent in those belonging to the six consciousnesses.' This clearly reveals that contact-nutriment applies to that associated with the eight consciousnesses, and implicitly harmonizes with Vasubandhu's Mahāyānasaṃgraha-bhāṣya, fascicle three, which says: 'Here, contact-nutriment belongs to the six consciousness-bodies; by contacting coarse and conspicuous objects, its nourishment is superior, and thus it does not take other contacts.'

There is an opinion: Only contact associated with the six consciousnesses is taken as the essential nature of nutriment. Although contact in the treatise generally operates in association with the eight consciousnesses, that which constitutes the essential nature of nutriment is only associated with the six consciousnesses, because contact associated with the seventh and eighth entirely lacks the ability to induce the two feelings of joy and pleasure, as well as beneficial equanimity; and the equanimity associated with the eighth has identical cognitive aspects in all stages and times. The previous explanation is incorrect. It is not required that contact must induce joy, pleasure, and other feelings that arise simultaneously with itself to be called nutriment; whenever it induces joy and so forth associated with other consciousnesses to arise and benefit the body, it is entirely [nutriment]. Because contact of the eighth [consciousness] and so on excels in its own object and induces simultaneous joy and so forth in the six consciousnesses, it is also nutriment. However, based on the various texts, the second explanation is superior, as they merely state that taking in and benefiting joy and so forth is nutriment, not the seventh or eighth.

The Cheng weishi lun states: 'Volition-nutriment refers to sāsrava volition operating together with desire.' It also states: 'Although this volition is associated with all consciousnesses, the meaning of nutriment is especially prominent in that belonging to the mental consciousness.' This intent precisely shows that volition associated with the eight sāsrava consciousnesses across the three realms, when desiring a desirable object and benefiting the body, is entirely the essential nature of volition-nutriment. This implicitly harmonizes with fascicle fifty-seven and Vasubandhu's Mahāyānasaṃgraha-bhāṣya, which say: 'Taking a future object as its condition and benefiting consciousness is called volition-nutriment, because the mind's volition has superior hope toward the object.' For this reason, fascicle ninety-four states: 'If it is volition capable of encountering an object on the mental ground, it is called volition encountering through the mind, which can serve as nutriment for all focused longing toward desirable objects.'

There is another opinion: All sāsrava volition associated with the six consciousnesses that longs for an object and benefits the body constitutes the essential nature of volition-nutriment. The seventh and eighth are not so, because they lack this cognitive aspect. The various texts only say that what is associated with the mind-ground conditions the future because it is the most prominent. Because there is also volition that longs for a present object, it is permitted to apply to the five consciousnesses. When the Weishi speaks of association with all consciousnesses, it clarifies the essential nature of volition being conjoined, while nutriment belongs only to the six.

There is an opinion: Volition-nutriment is conjoined only with the sixth, because the various texts only speak of conditioning the future. The five consciousnesses condition the present through the strengthening power of contact, not volition-nutriment. The Weishi states that 'the essence of volition applies to all consciousnesses, but that which accomplishes the meaning of nutriment is conjoined only with the sixth.' Therefore Vasubandhu said: 'Volition-nutriment is that which can hope; through hope, it benefits its basis. Just as seeing water from afar prevents dying of thirst because the mind hopes using the eye as a gateway, it is not that the five consciousnesses have hope for the future.'

Although there are these three interpretations, the second interpretation is superior. The five consciousnesses possess subtle volition toward objects, which can have longing. Otherwise, the five consciousnesses would not be associated with desire. Following this, the third [interpretation] agrees with the Weishi's position that does not accept the non-standard doctrine that the specific-state [mental factors] are conjoined with the five. Therefore, we know that the correct one is the second master's superior view.

The Cheng weishi lun states: 'Consciousness-nutriment refers to sāsrava consciousness. Although this consciousness generally applies to the intrinsic nature of all consciousnesses, the meaning of nutriment is especially prominent in the eighth consciousness.' This shows that consciousness-nutriment takes the eight sāsrava consciousnesses throughout the three realms, but that which properly is capable of appropriating is only the eighth consciousness, because of its superior maintenance in a uniform continuity. Both the Mahāyānasaṃgraha and Weishi take the eighth, though it actually applies to the eight consciousnesses. However, the Yogācārabhūmi and other texts merely speak generally of consciousness, without specifically calling it the eighth, because only the Mahāyānasaṃgraha and Weishi take the eighth. Although it is known that all eight consciousnesses can be called nutriment, not all consciousnesses establish the name of nutriment; the entire eighth consciousness in the sāsrava state is taken because it perpetually maintains. Fascicle fifty-seven says: 'Because the three nourish consciousness, and consciousness in turn nourishes the sense faculties and primary elements, it is established as nutriment.' Therefore, we know that any consciousness that does not provide nourishment is not subsumed under nutriment, just like contact, volition, and the rest. Only in the third section below, when distinguishing the characteristics through the fourfold analysis, should this be understood. However, the seventh consciousness is sāsrava; all [such aspects] are because it serves as the simultaneous support for the basic consciousness and can maintain it. That is, the seventh and eighth in their entirety and a small portion of the six consciousnesses [are nutriment], or the seventh is excluded because it does not provide nourishment.

Because of this, the third fascicle of the Abhidharmasamuccaya states: 'It is subsumed under a portion of three aggregates, five bases, and eleven dhatus. Material nutriment is the aggregate of matter; volition and contact are the aggregate of formations; the eight consciousnesses are the aggregate of consciousness. The five bases are the three—odor, taste, and tangibles—and the two bases of dharmas and mind. The eleven dhatus are odor, taste, tangibles, dharmas, and the seven mind dhatus. The four anāsrava ones are excluded, because they do not provide benefit. The phrase "a portion" means that not all of the three—odor, taste, and tangibles—are the essential nature of nutriment, because they do not [all] provide nourishment.' Fascicle fifty-seven states: 'That which can nourish is called nutriment; that which is contrary to this is not nutriment.' As it is for material nutriment, so it is for the other nutriments.

4.14

Third, explaining the characteristics: how do these four kinds nurture the sense faculties and primary elements so as to constitute the characteristic of nutriment? Regarding what is nurtured, [fascicle] fifty-seven states: "It refers to the five physical faculties and the mental faculty, together with all the primary elements upon which the faculties depend. If morsel nutriment can assist and benefit consciousness, causing it to become robust, it thereby also nurtures the faculties and primary elements, causing them to become robust as well. Contact can receive and assimilate either joy, pleasure, or a portion of equanimity; through this it benefits consciousness, and consciousness in turn nurtures the faculties and primary elements. Volition [serves] as proof, because its realm of objects is superior. Relying on expedient means, it gives rise to defiled or undefiled [states]. Hoping in the faculty of joy, taking future objects as its sphere, it assists and benefits consciousness. It thereby nurtures the faculties and primary elements." This text directly indicates that volition associated with joy is called volition nutriment, whereas volition associated with pleasure or equanimity is not. This interpretation is incorrect. It speaks only of that associated with joy in terms of the pre-eminent taking of objects; volitions associated with pleasure and equanimity are both included. Otherwise, in the third and fourth dhyānas of the higher realms, there would be no volition nutriment, which would directly contradict the holy teachings. These three kinds assist and benefit consciousness because their essence increases and they arise taking the present and future as objects. They also take the past as an object, but this meaning is omitted here as it is only explained in accordance with contact and volition. Since consciousness is supported and sustained by the three nutriments, it can serve as a cause of flourishing for subsequent moments, causing them to arise; therefore, consciousness is said to be nutriment for the mental faculty. Fascicle ninety-four states: "There are four phenomena that are most able to nurture the faculties and primary elements in the present life: first, bodily vigor; second, joy and pleasure; third, focused hope upon desirable things; fourth, that upon which the preceding three depend—namely, the faculties, primary elements, life-force, and warmth—abiding stably without disintegration." Morsel nutriment can serve as nutriment for bodily vigor; on account of bodily vigor, one is able to nurture the faculties and primary elements. "Bodily breath" (qi) is the wind element; "vigor" (li) is precisely the tangible item of strength in the tangible sense field. Due to morsel nutriment, that vigor is nurtured, and the faculties, primary elements, and so forth are nurtured. Fascicle fifty-seven states: "Morsel nutriment nurtures consciousness, making it robust, and only then does it nurture the faculties and primary elements." This refers to what is generally sustained; specifically, it sustains bodily vigor. In this context, regarding the lower three, fascicle ninety-four explains specific sustenance in the same way, while fascicle fifty-seven explains general sustenance; thus, they do not contradict each other. In the Cheng weishi lun, morsel nutriment and consciousness nutriment are explained in terms of both general and specific sustenance, so the texts do not conflict. Contact and volition are explained only according to what they specifically sustain because their functioning is pre-eminent and manifest, so this also does not conflict. Fascicle ninety-four says: "Contaminating contacts that accord with pleasurable feeling can serve as nutriment for joy and pleasure (omitting beneficial equanimity for brevity); thereby, they can nurture the faculties and primary elements. If it is volition that encounters objects, it can serve as nutriment for all focused hopes upon desirable things." This refers to desire associated with absorption, based on what is pre-eminent. Even if it is not hope associated with absorption, it also nurtures the faculties and primary elements on account of hope. Because consciousness appropriates the faculties and primary elements, it causes the faculties, primary elements, life-force, warmth, and consciousness to abide without separating from the body as their cause; therefore, consciousness is called the cause of their abiding. Because they abide, bodily vigor, joy and pleasure, and focused hope operate based upon them. That fascicle ninety-four further states in its second alternative explanation: "Because of morsel nutriment, there is bodily vigor; because there is bodily vigor, the faculties and primary elements increase; on account of this, one cherishes body and life. For this sake, all foolish worldlings make pursuits; at the time of pursuit, they perform various new good and bad karmas, and also cause defilements to increase. Contact and volition are also like this." By these three avenues, one can accumulate consciousness accompanied by karma and defilements that leads to future existence. In the present life, because it is followed by karma and defilements, it becomes something "having appropriation". Furthermore, it can receive and sustain the faculties, primary elements, and so forth of future existences, causing them to increase further. Accordingly, these four each have general and specific phenomena that are nurtured in the present and the future. However, although this morsel nutriment nurtures the various consciousnesses or nurtures bodily vigor, fascicle sixty-six states: "If it undergoes proper digestion and transformation, it can nurture; if it undergoes improper digestion and transformation, it causes impairment. If morsel substances, at the time of swallowing, gladden the mind and delight the faculties, at that time they are not called morsel nutriment, but only contact nutriment. They are the object of contact, because contact is the pre-eminent object. It is not that the three sense fields are the essence of contact nutriment itself, but rather that the contact of gladness produced by the three is contact nutriment. If, after being consumed, it is digested and transformed peacefully and pleasantly, increasing joy and pleasure, at the time of digestion and transformation it is only then called morsel nutriment. If, although ripened and transformed, it cannot nurture the well-being of the faculties, it is not called morsel nutriment. If at the time of swallowing it does not produce joy and also cannot delight the faculties, at that time it is not called nutriment at all; it must later be digested and transformed peacefully and pleasantly, increasing joy and pleasure, before it is called nutriment." Fascicle fifty-seven states: "There may be a morsel substance that temporarily impairs at the time of consumption, but benefits when transformed and broken down, such as bitter or acrid things. There may be a morsel substance that temporarily benefits at the time of consumption, but impairs when transformed and broken down, such as sweet and delicious food that is unsuited to the body; therefore, it is established as nutriment only when transformed and broken down." The treatise provides only two alternatives; thus, one should add: both initially and subsequently impairing, such as poison; both initially and subsequently beneficial, such as sweet, delicious food suited to one's consumption. Among the four alternatives, the first and fourth are called nutriment, while the other two are not; accordingly, one should make a fourfold categorization. Fascicle sixty-six states: "There may be a morsel substance that is not nutriment: namely, morsel substances that cannot nurture the faculties and primary elements. There may be nutriment that is not a morsel substance: namely, contact, volition, and consciousness that can nurture the faculties and primary elements. There may be what is both nutriment and a morsel substance: namely, morsel substances that can nurture the faculties and primary elements. There may be what is neither a morsel substance nor nutriment: namely, contact, volition, and consciousness that cannot nurture the faculties and primary elements." Likewise, for the remaining three—contact, volition, and consciousness—the four alternatives are formulated accordingly; in order to clarify the fundamental meaning, all should be distinguished. There may be contact that is not nutriment: namely, contact that accords with suffering, sorrow, or a portion of equanimity. There may be nutriment that is not contact: namely, morsel, volition, and consciousness that can nurture the faculties and primary elements. There may be what is both contact and nutriment: namely, contact that assists and benefits the two feelings of joy and pleasure as well as a portion of equanimity, benefiting the faculties, primary elements, and so forth. There may be what is neither contact nor nutriment: namely, the three—morsel, volition, and consciousness—that are not nutriment. There may be volition that is not nutriment: namely, [volition] taking the past, present, or future as object that cannot assist and benefit the faculties and primary elements. There may be nutriment that is not volition: namely, the other three nutriments. There may be what is both volition and nutriment: namely, volition associated with desire that takes the future as object and benefits the faculties and primary elements. As for "and so on to the four alternatives": namely, the other three that are non-nutriment. There may be consciousness that is not nutriment: namely, consciousness not sustained by the [other] three that cannot nurture the faculties and primary elements. There may be nutriment that is not consciousness: namely, the other three nutriments. The third alternative: consciousness sustained by the preceding three that can benefit the faculties and primary elements. The fourth alternative: the preceding three that are non-nutriment. Because each of these four has four alternatives, the fifth fascicle of the Abhidharmasamuccaya states: "Because of transformation, there are those with transformation. Because of [having] an object realm, there are those with an object realm. Because of hope, there are those with hope. Because of appropriation, there are those with appropriation." Appropriation means taking objects. Or "having appropriation" is an alternative name for sāsrava (contaminating). Because in each one there is the affirmative and negative, this meaning is established. In this way, it is collectively called the fulfillment of the characteristics of nutriment.

4.15

Fourth, on establishment and elimination: There are four things that are most able to nourish the sense faculties and primary elements in the present life: first, physical vigor; second, joy and pleasure; third, concentrated aspiration toward agreeable objects; fourth, the sense faculties, primary elements, lifespan, and warmth upon which the former three depend, abiding stably without disintegrating. You should know that, in this order, four things are specifically employed as foods: first, morsel food; second, contact; third, volition; fourth, consciousness. This is because there are only four distinct entities nourished that sustain the faculties and primary elements. Foods are established as only four—neither fewer nor more—because other things lack superior capacity in these four respects. Moreover, because pursuing the three foods and so forth generates karma and afflictions, which produce consciousness in subsequent existences, only four are established, whereas other phenomena are not like this. Furthermore, fascicle 57 states: 'Why are these four established as foods? Because they are the majority.' Fascicle 66 says: 'These four are the causes and conditions for the enduring of conditioned phenomena in the majority of cases; sentient beings for the most part depend on these four for sustenance, hence there is neither addition nor reduction.' Also, because they are easy to perceive: the marks of these four are prominent and easily known. Fascicle 66 says: 'Because even infants and the like are capable of knowing them.' Also, because they easily nourish day by day: these four easily sustain the body daily, whereas other phenomena cannot sustain it repeatedly. Also, because they are easy to enter into with respect to the applications of mindfulness: fascicle 66 says, 'They make it easy to enter the path and to cultivate the four applications of mindfulness, such as mindfulness of the body. That is, because all sentient beings abide by food: due to morsel food, one can cultivate mindfulness of the body; due to contact food, one can cultivate mindfulness of feelings; due to consciousness food, one can cultivate mindfulness of mind; due to volition food, one can cultivate mindfulness of phenomena. Volition is the master of all conditioned phenomena, and because food serves as their cause, one easily enters the path; thus foods are only of four kinds.' Furthermore, fascicle 66 states: 'There are seven causes and conditions that sustain conditioned phenomena so that they endure and do not disintegrate. Why does the World-Honoured One teach only four foods? What are the seven? First, birth, because without birth nothing endures; second, the life faculty; third, food; fourth, sovereignty of mind and supernormal powers; fifth, the harmony of causes and conditions, for as long as conditions are not exhausted, wholesome and other phenomena endure; sixth, attention, because through activating previous karma, it pulls conditioned phenomena so that they are not interrupted; seventh, absence of obstacles, which is separation from contrary and destructive phenomena.' The text itself replies: 'This is due to five reasons: first, because they are easy to comprehend; second, because they can cause emaciated sense faculties and primary elements to increase; third, because they can cause illnesses to be cured; fourth, because there are long-lived sentient beings who, if they do not obtain food, would die untimely deaths; fifth, because they cause one to enter the path easily, cultivating the four applications of mindfulness and so forth. Therefore, only four are taught, neither more nor fewer.' On what basis is it further said that conditioned phenomena endure in dependence on the life faculty? That is, in places where there is never any lack of drink and food, and no difficulty in seeking drink and food, in such places they endure solely through the power of the life faculty, enduring in accordance with the lifespan they have incurred; the Buddha spoke of enduring due to life based on such places. If so, why is it not called food? Fascicle 57 says: 'Because apart from food, it ultimately cannot nourish the body. Consciousness is also like this; it must receive the sustenance of the [other] three before it can endure.' This also is not [universally] the case: when born in the formless realm or entering the cessation attainment, consciousness sustains the body by itself; how could it depend on the power of the three? Speaking of depending on the three is a general discussion for all cases, not that it is so in every single instance. Or [it is because] consciousness sustains life and so on through the three in a superior manner, whereas the substance of life is not like this, so it does not serve as a parallel. Fascicle 57 also says: 'Why do sleep, dreams, celibacy, and meditative attainment all nourish the faculties and primary elements, yet are not established as foods? Answer: There are two kinds of nourishment: first, nourishment through specific appropriation; second, nourishment through preventing harm. Although the three—such as sleep and dreams—nourish with respect to the latter nourishment, they do not with respect to the former; therefore they are not established [as foods].' 'Specific appropriation' is what fascicle 94 refers to as 'the present conditions that nourish, namely physical vigor and so forth.' The four foods individually appropriate these and generally benefit consciousness. Other phenomena are not like this and should not be considered food. If so, why are contact, volition, and consciousness not [non-nourishing]? If only preventing harm is called nourishment, how could it be pervasive? The above has fully completed the general establishment and elimination. Why are the five sense faculties and the two [objects] of visible form and sound not included in food? The five faculties can also support the five consciousness-bodies to become clear or dim, and viewing visible form and hearing sound also provide nourishment. If they supported the four factors, they could be established as food, but they lack this function. The faculties are nourished by being sustained by their consciousness; consciousness is capable of superior nourishment, not the faculties toward consciousness, hence they are not spoken of [as food]. Morsel food increases [nourishment] when transforming and disintegrating, but visible form and sound do not. Moreover, fascicle 57 and the *Cheng weishi lun* say: 'Visible form causes neither harm nor benefit upon transforming and disintegrating. Since it causes neither harm nor benefit to its own faculty, it also causes none to other faculties, and thus is not established [as food]. Moreover, visible form is coarse and gross, and the substance of sound is diffuse and tenuous; their function occurs apart from the faculties, and they cannot sustain physical vigor to become strong, hence they are not established as food. Although the form that results from superior meditative absorption possesses all five [sense] bases, it is completely not food. However, by the power of noble ones, three bases can become food, just as the rice of the Fragrance-Accumulating [World] can serve as food.' There is an opinion that this is not so: those are actually the three [external] bases, not the mental-object base. However, when noble ones transform them through the power of meditative absorptions and supernormal powers to provide sustenance, they are apprehended by the three [sense] consciousnesses, not by the mental-object base. This also is not so: must they be apprehended by the three consciousnesses to be called food? Rather, whenever they transform afterward and can sustain physical vigor, causing consciousness to be bright and clear, they need not be apprehended by consciousness. Therefore, the three bases that result from superior meditative absorption are called food because they are apprehended by the basic consciousness and can provide nourishment. The doctrine that nominal form included in the mental-object base is not food is also established, because it lacks substantial entity and function, just like [conditioned factors] non-concurrent [with mind]. Why are feeling and conception not called food? Feeling must be sustained by contact before it benefits consciousness, just like physical vigor; hence it is not established as food. The function of conception is subtle and indistinct, and has no efficacy regarding the four, being inferior to contact and volition; hence it also is not established. Although one also pursues the four foods on account of craving, it does not directly sustain and nourish. Karma and so forth are also like this, and therefore are not called food. The remaining mental factors are all inferior to contact and volition: contact is pervasive to all minds and accords with producing the three feelings; volition is capable of aspiration and is the master of constructive activity. Therefore all the rest are not [foods]. The uncontaminated and unconditioned both destroy existence; therefore only the contaminated four are established with the name of food.

First 15 of 51 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大乘法苑義林章 — Classical Chinese