止觀輔行傳弘決 8.2

8.2

Regarding the explanation of the object of afflictions: From here down, the six objects in the present text and the three abbreviated objects are all manifestations obtained [through practice]. The afflictions arising outside of these nine objects, up to the four universal vows, merely belong to the aggregate object and are subsumed under the three aggregates. Therefore, in ordinary times, one is not without afflictions, and up to the arousing of the aspiration [for awakening], all must equally be contemplated; it is not that they are not called objects. The present text speaks of distinguishing what is manifested and obtained through contemplating the aggregates, hence the distinction must be made. Let readers and practitioners not be confused about the fundamental principle. As stated in the earlier discrimination of the seven pairs: "These ten objects are subsumed under the three obstacles," which does not mean the three obstacles that arise in the present. As for the present three obstacles, as the tenth fascicle of the Great Scripture states: "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva who seeks the knowledge of all aspects does so to eradicate the three kinds of obstacles for sentient beings. As for the obstacle of affliction, it refers to the entanglements and covers of the three poisons, the eight forms of arrogance, the four perversions, and so forth. As for the obstacle of karma, it refers to the five acts of immediate retribution. As for the obstacle of retribution, it refers to the three evil destinies, slandering the true Dharma, and being an icchantika." Thus we know that pointing out evil as capable of obstructing is why it is called an obstacle; here, by extension of type, those latter two are subsumed. First, in the general explanation of the reason for its occurrence, he first concludes the preceding and introduces what follows; from "the aggregates above" down concludes the preceding, and from "yet when examining" down introduces what follows. Next, from "previously admonishing desires" down directly explains the reason for its occurrence, first distinguishing it from the various passages above, which contains the Dharma, a simile, and their combination. First, he explains the distinction from the admonishing of desires and discarding of covers among the expedients above; next, the distinction from the aggregate object above. Although the covers of desire above and [the phenomena] in the aggregates and bases possess marks of delusion, they have not become excessively intensified and are not the object of afflictions. Therefore, in admonishing desires, one merely knows that the five dusts are conditions for generating the practitioner's covetous desire; generating desire is a fault, and due to the fault, sin arises; therefore they must be admonished. Among the covers, it is merely that conditions [arising from] departing dusts hinder entry into contemplation, and so they must be discarded. Furthermore, whether these two sets of five are admonished or discarded, they only constitute expedients and are not yet the primary application of contemplation. Previously, contemplating the aggregates and bases was contemplating the retribution aggregates; the retribution aggregates are indeterminate, and upon those aggregates one seeks wondrous understanding; therefore that aggregate object was not yet termed affliction. Furthermore, although the earlier passage on separately traversing the single mind contemplated greed and anger, that was not the import of the present object. It is merely that all the good and bad delusions arising in the present are subsumed under the aggregates and bases; therefore the afflictions arising on account of the aggregates are all called the aggregate object. The present object must manifest on account of contemplating the aggregates; when severe greed and so forth manifest, only then is it called the present object. From "now contemplating" onwards directly presents the present object as distinct from the aggregates, covers, and so forth; thus it says, "arousing severe greed and anger." From "like iron" down provides a simile. The iron is like the aggregates, and the fire is like contemplation. When the aggregates have not met with contemplation, past delusions remain submerged; therefore it says, "it is merely black." On account of contemplating the aggregate object, before understanding of the aggregates is born, latent habits arise differently from before; therefore it is said to be "blazing red." Furthermore, from "retribution dharma" down next discriminates the difficult and the easy. He reiterates the covers of desire as well as the aggregates and bases, and together discriminates the difficult and the easy in comparison with the present afflictions. Thus, the essence of the covers of desire generally belongs to the aggregates and bases, and so together with the aggregates and bases they are generally called "ordinary." From "Why is this?" down, he explains separately. He discriminates the difficult and the easy in contrast with the preceding three dharmas. First, in the direct explanation of the contrast, there is first the Dharma, followed by a simile. In the Dharma, he sets out the previous three poisons in contrast with the present. The former are retribution dharmas and presently active afflictions, and are therefore easy to quell; the present manifestation is already severe, and is therefore difficult to restrain. "Inverted thinking" is ignorance. Greed is obvious. As for the "dead horse," the first precept in the Ten Recitations tells of a heavenly māra who, wishing to ruin Nanda, transformed into a woman and lured him to the location of a horse, then vanished; that person's desire was so intense that he did not even discriminate. From "this delusion" down, he further discriminates supporting conditions. The afflictions that have manifested have already exceeded the ordinary, and with the addition of external conditions, they cause one to run wild. From "just as" down presents a simile. The "flowing water" is like the dharma of the aggregates; "applying contemplation" is like the wooden dam; "stirring up habits" is like surging waves. As for "ripples" and so forth, when the wind moves, the flowing water forms patterns. Now, being dammed by wood, that wind moves swiftly, and the stream compresses so that the water surges up. Furthermore, ripples are doubled waves; waves atop waves, hence called doubled waves. The character for "surging" originally has the sound bào, as in "the leopard changes" (bàobiàn); here it is the rising of water, borrowing the character with the water radical. The simile of the "strong man" has broadly the same meaning as that of the water. From "afflictions" down combines the similes. From "like touching a sleeping lion" down further reinforces and clarifies the previous simile with an analogy. From "if not" down concludes with an exhortation to recognize it. From "not only" down explains the faults arising on account of the object, as the fifth fascicle states: "Following along with it drags a person toward evil"; this is what it means. Next, within the direct explanation, first, in explaining the characteristics, there are two explanations in interpreting the name: First, interpreting the characters together, the three poisons are that which disturbs (fan), and the mind-spirit is that which is distressed (nao); next, interpreting the characters separately, fan is that which disturbs, and nao is that which is distressed. One should know that the common name applies to both views and thoughts. From "this preliminary division" down explains that within the blunt there is the sharp. Just as bugs, beasts, and common people can also arouse [the view of] self, and self is precisely sharp; although sharp, it belongs to the blunt; thus it says, "truly not inferring principles, up to being conceited." "Wriggling things" refers to tiny insects that have consciousness and the ability to move. "Raising their pincers" and so forth refers to the crab family. The Picang says: "One of its pincers is entirely large, named 'gripping the sword,' also named 'holding fire,' because the claw is red." It is also like the praying mantis resisting the carriage rut, and the like. "Mane" (qi) refers to the hair on the neck. The Shuowen says: "Qi is a horse's mane." When wolves and the like grow angry, they invariably bristle their manes in fury. This brings up inferior classes such as insects to illustrate humans: if even these grasp at a self, how much more so humans? From "inferior, common, and base" down brings up blunt-affliction commoners who also possess the sharp. From "the five sharp, up to how could it ever..." down next explains that within the sharp there is the blunt, just as the various non-Buddhists rely on various views to arouse anger. From "if before dhyāna has manifested" down: Question: If, like the disciples of the Buddha, people practicing sequentially have also not yet manifested dhyāna, why are these called the delusions of view severed by the srotāpanna? Answer: Here, determining the sharp and the blunt is done in terms of presently manifested views and the delusions generated by views. If before one has attained dhyāna, even if all afflictions from past habits arise, along with the view of self arising on account of the present aggregates, they still belong to the blunt entanglements. What is severed at the first fruit is shared by common people, remaining latently submerged in the body to obstruct true taintlessness; if one sees the principle of the truths, this delusion is naturally eliminated; therefore this delusion is designated as "views," and is thus not the same as what arises after dhyāna. As for the various non-Buddhists, because they have not seen the truths, even after obtaining dhyāna and severing the blunt entanglements, they have still not severed a single hair of the delusions of view. Since their delusions of view are actively operating, they are not the same as all delusions of view before dhyāna has manifested or those that are latently submerged; therefore they are not taken as analogous to the delusions of view among the eighty-eight entanglements. Thus, the eighty-eight entanglements conceptually belong to what is subsumed under the aggregate object; only when distinguished against the sharp and blunt do they receive the name of "views," which again differs from the marks of the delusions of view after dhyāna. Here, they are merely distinguished in contrast to views after dhyāna; therefore it says that if views arise after attaining dhyāna, even if there is greed and anger, they equally belong to the sharp. From "like two scholars" down gives an example. Attaining the words is like the blunt; attaining the meaning is like the sharp. When both attain the words and meaning, their disputes are fierce; when both grasp at a self and attain dhyāna, their views are intense. From "if it manifests" down selectively reveals the substance of the object. Although the eighty-eight entanglements are completely present in the body, what arises merely belongs to the blunt entanglements and constitutes the present object. From "if within the sharp" down next judges the root and branches. First, he raises an interrogation: If within the sharp there is the blunt, then when a person severs the delusions of view, this is merely called severing the sharp, and this delusion of the blunt within the sharp ought to remain. If not, then the blunt within the sharp would not be called blunt. Therefore, he next cites the Abhidharma's explanation, saying: Although the sharp contains the blunt, this blunt belongs to the sharp, arising upon the back of the sharp entanglements. Although an inferior person arouses the sharp, this sharp belongs to the blunt, arising upon the back of the blunt entanglements. Therefore it says, "the thinking [delusions] are also like this."