A Pi Da Mo Ju She Lun (阿毘達磨俱舍論)

尊者世親造

Composed by the Venerable Vasubandhu.

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by the Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under imperial decree.

諸一切種諸冥滅，拔眾生出生死泥，

He who has wholly extinguished the darkness of ignorance in every kind, and lifted beings out of the mire of birth and death,

敬禮如是如理師，對法藏論我當說。

To such a teacher of the true principle I pay homage; and I shall now speak the treatise, the Treasury of the Abhidharma.

論曰：今欲造論，為顯自師其體尊高超諸聖眾，故先讚德方申敬禮。諸言所表謂佛世尊，此能破闇故稱冥滅。言一切種諸冥滅者，謂滅諸境一切品冥。以諸無知能覆實義及障真見，故說為冥。唯佛世尊得永對治，於一切境一切種冥，證不生法故稱為滅。聲聞獨覺雖滅諸冥，以染無知畢竟斷，故非一切種。所以者何？由於佛法極遠時處及諸義類無邊差別，不染無知猶未斷故。已讚世尊自利德滿，次當讚佛利他德圓。拔眾生出生死泥者，由彼生死是諸眾生沈溺處故，難可出故，所以譬泥。眾生於中淪沒無救，世尊哀愍隨授所應，正法教手拔濟令出。已讚佛德，次申敬禮。敬禮如是如理師者，稽首接足故稱敬禮。諸有具前自他利德，故云如是。如實無倒教授誡勗，名如理師。如理師言顯利他德，能方便說如理正教，從生死泥拔眾生出，不由威力與願神通。禮如理師欲何所作？對法藏論我當說者，教誡學徒故稱為論。其論者何？謂對法藏。何謂對法？頌曰：

The treatise says: Now that the author is about to compose a treatise, in order to show that his own teacher is of exalted nature and surpasses all the holy assemblies, he first praises his virtues and then declares his homage. The word "he" refers to the Buddha, the World-Honored One; because he is able to destroy darkness, he is called the one in whom darkness is extinguished. When it says "darkness extinguished in every kind," it means that he has extinguished the darkness that clouds every class of object. Because ignorance can cover the real meaning and obstruct true seeing, it is called darkness. Only the Buddha, the World-Honored One, has gained the permanent antidote to the darkness regarding all objects in every kind, and has realized the dharma of non-arising, and so it is called extinguished. Although the Hearers and the Solitary Buddhas have extinguished many kinds of darkness, because defiled ignorance has been cut off in them only finally and not wholly, they are not extinguished in every kind. Why? Because the Buddha-dharmas are infinitely distant in time and place, and the classes of meanings have boundless distinctions, so that undefiled ignorance has still not been cut off in them. Having praised the World-Honored One for the fullness of his virtue that benefits himself, the author next praises the perfection of his virtue that benefits others. "Lifted beings out of the mire of birth and death": since birth and death is where beings sink and is hard to climb out of, it is likened to mire. Beings drown in it with no one to save them; the World-Honored One, in compassion, gives each what suits them and with the hand of the teaching of the true Dharma draws them out. Having praised the Buddha's virtue, the author next declares his homage. "I pay homage to such a teacher of the true principle": to bow the head and touch the feet is called paying homage. Because he possesses the aforesaid virtues benefiting himself and others, he is called "such." One who instructs and admonishes truthfully and without inversion is called a teacher of the true principle. The words "teacher of the true principle" show his virtue in benefiting others: he is able, by skillful means, to teach the true doctrine and draw beings out of the mire of birth and death, not by the force of mere power or by vows and supernormal powers. What is the purpose of paying homage to the teacher of the true principle? "I shall now speak the Treasury of the Abhidharma": because it instructs and admonishes students, it is called a treatise. And what is this treatise? It is the Treasury of the Abhidharma. What is the Abhidharma? The verse says:

淨慧隨行名對法，及能得此諸慧論。

Pure wisdom and what accompanies it are called the Abhidharma, as are the wisdoms that attain it, and the treatises.

論曰：慧謂擇法，淨謂無漏，淨慧眷屬名曰隨行。如是總說無漏五蘊名為對法，此則勝義阿毘達磨。若說世俗阿毘達磨，即能得此諸慧及論。慧謂得此有漏修慧、思聞生得慧及隨行。論謂傳生無漏慧教。此諸慧論是彼資糧，故亦得名阿毘達磨。釋此名者，能持自相故名為法。若勝義法唯是涅槃，若法相法通四聖諦，此能對向或能對觀，故稱對法。已釋對法。何故此論名對法藏？頌曰：

The treatise says: Wisdom means discernment of the dharmas; pure means without outflows; the retinue of pure wisdom is called what accompanies it. Taken together, the five aggregates without outflows are called the Abhidharma, and this is the ultimate Abhidharma (abhidharma: observing the Four Truths and discriminating the dharmas). The conventional Abhidharma is the wisdoms that attain it, together with the treatises. By wisdom here is meant the contaminated wisdoms of cultivation, of reflection, of hearing, and of birth, that attain it, along with what accompanies them. By treatises is meant the teaching that is able to transmit and give rise to wisdom without outflows. Because these wisdoms and treatises are the provisions for it, they also receive the name Abhidharma. Explaining the term: what is able to hold its own characteristic is called dharma. In the ultimate sense, dharma is nirvana alone; in the sense of the characteristics of dharma, it is generally the Four Noble Truths. What can face or look toward these is called abhi-dharma, "toward the dharma." The Abhidharma has now been explained. Why is this treatise called the Treasury of the Abhidharma? The verse says:

攝彼勝義依彼故，此立對法俱舍名。

Because it gathers in those ultimate meanings and rests upon them, here is established the name Abhidharma-kosha.

論曰：由彼對法論中勝義入此攝故，此得藏名。或此依彼、從彼引生，是彼所藏，故亦名藏。是故此論名對法藏。何因說彼阿毘達磨？誰復先說阿毘達磨，而今造論恭敬解釋？頌曰：

The treatise says: Because the ultimate meanings of that Abhidharma are included within this treatise, it obtains the name "treasury." Or, because this depends on that and is drawn out from it, it is stored by that, and so it is also called a treasury. Therefore this treatise is called the Treasury of the Abhidharma. For what reason was the Abhidharma taught? And who first taught the Abhidharma, so that the author now composes a treatise to explain it with reverence? The verse says:

若離擇法定無餘，能滅諸惑勝方便，

Apart from discernment of the dharmas there is surely no other excellent means that can extinguish the afflictions,

由惑世間漂有海，因此傳佛說對法。

and because of the afflictions the world drifts in the sea of existence; therefore it is handed down from teacher to teacher that the Buddha spoke the Abhidharma.

論曰：若離擇法，無勝方便能滅諸惑。諸惑能令世間漂轉生死大海，因此傳佛說彼對法，欲令世間得擇法故。離說對法，弟子不能於諸法相如理簡擇。然佛世尊處處散說阿毘達磨，大德迦多衍尼子等諸大聲聞結集安置。猶如大德法救所集無常品等鄔拕南頌，毘婆沙師傳說如此。何法名為彼所簡擇，因此傳佛說對法耶？頌曰：

The treatise says: Apart from discernment of the dharmas there is no excellent means to extinguish the afflictions. The afflictions make the world drift and turn in the great sea of birth and death; therefore it has been handed down from one to another that the Buddha spoke that Abhidharma, so that the world might attain discernment of the dharmas. Apart from teaching the Abhidharma, disciples cannot rightly discriminate the characteristics of the dharmas. Indeed the Buddha, the World-Honored One, taught the Abhidharma scattered in many places, and the great Hearers such as the Venerable Katyayaniputra compiled and arranged it, just as the Venerable Dharmatrata compiled the Udana verses of the chapter on impermanence and the rest. The Vaibhashika masters transmit it thus. What dharmas are those that are to be discriminated, for which it is handed down that the Buddha spoke the Abhidharma? The verse says:

有漏無漏法，除道餘有為，

There are dharmas with outflows and dharmas without outflows; apart from the truth of the path, all other conditioned dharmas

於彼漏隨增，故說名有漏。

are ones in which the outflows increase along with them, and so they are said to be with outflows.

無漏謂道諦，及三種無為，

Without outflows means the truth of the path, and the three kinds of unconditioned dharmas,

謂虛空二滅，此中空無礙。

namely space and the two cessations; here space is non-obstruction.

擇滅謂離繫，隨繫事各別，

Cessation through discernment means disconnection, which differs according to the things to which one is bound;

畢竟礙當生，別得非擇滅。

that which finally obstructs what is yet to arise is separately attained as cessation without discernment.

論曰：說一切法略有二種，謂有漏、無漏。有漏法雲何？謂除道諦，餘有為法。所以者何？諸漏於中等隨增故。緣滅道諦，諸漏雖生而不隨增，故非有漏。不隨增義，隨眠品中自當顯說。已辯有漏。無漏云何？謂道聖諦及三無為。何等為三？虛空、二滅。二滅者何？擇、非擇滅。此虛空等三種無為及道聖諦，名無漏法。所以者何？諸漏於中不隨增故。於略所說三無為中，虛空但以無礙為性，由無障故色於中行。擇滅即以離繫為性，諸有漏法遠離繫縛證得解脫，名為擇滅。擇謂簡擇，即慧差別，各別簡擇四聖諦故。擇力所得滅名為擇滅，如牛所駕車名曰牛車，略去中言故作是說。一切有漏法同一擇滅耶？不爾。云何？隨繫事別。謂隨繫事量，離繫事亦爾。若不爾者，於證見苦所斷煩惱滅時，應證一切所斷諸煩惱滅。若如是者，修餘對治則為無用。依何義說滅無同類？依滅自無同類因義亦不與他，故作是說，非無同類。已說擇滅。永礙當生得非擇滅，謂能永礙未來法生。得滅異前，名非擇滅。得不因擇，但由闕緣。如眼與意專一色時，餘色聲香味觸等謝。緣彼境界五識身等住未來世畢竟不生，由彼不能緣過去境，緣不具故得非擇滅。於法得滅應作四句。或於諸法唯得擇滅，謂諸有漏過現生法。或於諸法唯非擇滅，謂不生法無漏有為。或於諸法俱得二滅，謂彼不生諸有漏法。或於諸法不得二滅，謂諸無漏過現生法。如是已說三種無為。前說除道，餘有為法是名有漏。何謂有為？頌曰：

The treatise says: All dharmas, in brief, are of two kinds, namely those with outflows and those without outflows. (Hereafter the five aggregates, the twelve sense-bases, the eighteen elements, and form, mind, mental factors, formations dissociated from mind, and the unconditioned are all items of this Abhidharma system; "latent tendencies" are the latent force of the afflictions. When each first appears, its place in this system is noted, without annotating every term.) What are dharmas with outflows? They are the conditioned dharmas other than the truth of the path. Why? Because the outflows increase along with them. The truths of cessation and of the path, although outflows may arise toward them, do not increase along with them, and so they are not with outflows. The meaning of not increasing along with will naturally be explained in the chapter on latent tendencies. The dharmas with outflows have been explained. What are those without outflows? They are the noble truth of the path and the three unconditioned dharmas. Which three? Space and the two cessations. What are the two cessations? Cessation through discernment and cessation without discernment. These three unconditioned dharmas, space and the others, together with the noble truth of the path, are called dharmas without outflows. Why? Because the outflows do not increase along with them. Among the three unconditioned dharmas just briefly mentioned, space has non-obstruction alone as its nature; because it is without hindrance, form moves within it. Cessation through discernment has disconnection as its nature: when the dharmas with outflows are far removed from their bonds and liberation is attained, this is called cessation through discernment. Discernment means discrimination, which is a particular kind of wisdom, because it discriminates the Four Noble Truths one by one. The cessation obtained through the power of discernment is called cessation through discernment, just as a cart drawn by oxen is called an ox-cart, the intermediate words being omitted; hence it is put this way. Is the cessation through discernment of all dharmas with outflows the same? No. How, then? It differs according to the things by which one is bound. The extent of the things to which one is bound is also the extent of the disconnection. If it were not so, then when the afflictions to be cut off by seeing suffering are extinguished, one would have realized the extinction of all afflictions to be cut off. If so, cultivating the other antidotes would be useless. In what sense is it said that extinction has no like kind? It is in the sense that extinction has no cause of the same kind as its own, and does not give rise to one for others either; hence it is put this way, and it does not mean there are no like kinds. Cessation through discernment has been explained. The cessation that permanently obstructs what is yet to arise is cessation without discernment, namely the permanent obstruction of the arising of future dharmas. The attainment of this cessation differs from the former, and so it is called cessation without discernment. Its attainment does not come through discernment but only from the lack of conditions. For example, when the eye and the mind are fixed on a single form, the other forms, sounds, smells, tastes, and tangibles pass away. The five consciousness groups that take those objects, abiding in the future, never arise, because they cannot take past objects and the conditions are incomplete; thus cessation without discernment is attained. Regarding the attainment of cessation in respect of dharmas, four alternatives should be made. Either for some dharmas only cessation through discernment is attained, namely the dharmas with outflows that are past or presently arisen. Or for some only cessation without discernment, namely the dharmas that will not arise, being conditioned and without outflows. Or for some both cessations are attained, namely those dharmas with outflows that will not arise. Or for some neither cessation is attained, namely the past or presently arisen dharmas without outflows. Thus the three unconditioned dharmas have been explained. It was said above that the conditioned dharmas other than the path are called with outflows. What is the conditioned? The verse says:

又諸有為法，謂色等五蘊，

Again, the conditioned dharmas are the five aggregates, namely form and the rest,

亦世路言依，有離有事等。

also called the paths of the world, the basis of speech, that which has separation, that which has a cause, and so on.

論曰：色等五蘊，謂初色蘊乃至識蘊。如是五法具攝有為，眾緣聚集共所作故。無有少法一緣所生，是彼類故。未來無妨，如乳如薪。此有為法亦名世路，已行正行當行性故，或為無常所吞食故。或名言依，言謂語言，此所依者即名俱義。如是言依具攝一切有為諸法。若不爾者，應違《品類足論》所說。彼說言依十八界攝。或名有離，離謂永離，即是涅槃，一切有為有彼離故。或名有事，以有因故，事是因義。毘婆沙師傳說如此。如是等類是有為法差別眾名，於此所說有為法中。頌曰：

The treatise says: The five aggregates, form and the rest, are the first aggregate of form up to the aggregate of consciousness. These five dharmas fully include the conditioned, because they are made together by the gathering of many conditions. No small dharma is born from a single condition, because it belongs to that one class. That the future is not excluded is like milk and like firewood. These conditioned dharmas are also called the path of the world, because their nature is to have gone, to be going, and to be about to go, or because they are devoured by impermanence. They are also called the basis of speech: speech means language, and what it rests upon is name together with meaning. Thus the basis of speech fully includes all the conditioned dharmas. If it were not so, it would contradict what the Prakaranapada says, for it says that the basis of speech is included in the eighteen elements. They are also called that which has separation: separation means permanent separation, which is nirvana, and all the conditioned have that separation. They are also called that which has a cause, because they have causes, "cause" being the meaning of "thing." So the Vaibhashika masters transmit. These and similar are the various names for the different aspects of the conditioned dharmas. Among the conditioned dharmas thus described, the verse says:

有漏名取蘊，亦說為有諍，

What has outflows is called the aggregates of clinging, and is also said to be contentious,

及苦集世間，見處三有等。

and also suffering, origin, the world, the ground of views, the three existences, and so on.

論曰：此何所立？謂立取蘊亦名為蘊。或有唯蘊而非取蘊，謂無漏行。煩惱名取，蘊從取生故名取蘊，如草穅火。或蘊屬取故名取蘊，如帝王臣。或蘊生取故名取蘊，如花果樹。此有漏法亦名有諍，煩惱名諍，觸動善品故、損害自他故、諍隨增故，名為有諍。猶如有漏亦名為苦，違聖心故。亦名為集，能招苦故。亦名世間，可毀壞故、有對治故。亦名見處，見住其中隨增眠故。亦名三有，有因有依三有攝故。如是等類是有漏法。隨義別名，如上所言。色等五蘊名有為法。色蘊者何？頌曰：

The treatise says: What is established here? It is the aggregates of clinging, which are also called aggregates. Some are only aggregates and are not aggregates of clinging, namely the undefiled conduct. Affliction is called clinging; because the aggregates arise from clinging they are called aggregates of clinging, like chaff-fire. Or because the aggregates belong to clinging they are called aggregates of clinging, like the ministers of a king. Or because the aggregates give rise to clinging they are called aggregates of clinging, like the flowers and fruit of a tree. These dharmas with outflows are also called contentious: affliction is called contention, because it disturbs wholesome qualities, harms oneself and others, and is a place where contention increases; hence what has outflows is called contentious. Likewise what has outflows is also called suffering, because it opposes the mind of the noble ones. It is also called origin, because it is able to bring about suffering. It is also called the world, because it can be destroyed and has an antidote. It is also called the ground of views, because views dwell in it and latent tendencies increase there. It is also called the three existences, because it has causes and supports and is included in the three existences. These and similar are different names of the dharmas with outflows according to their meaning. As stated above, the five aggregates, form and the rest, are called conditioned dharmas. What is the aggregate of form? The verse says:

色者唯五根，五境及無表。

Form is only the five faculties, the five objects, and the non-informing.

論曰：言五根者，所謂眼、耳、鼻、舌、身根。言五境者，即是眼等五根境界，所謂色、聲、香、味、所觸。及無表者，謂無表色。唯依此量立色蘊名。此中先應說五根相。頌曰：

The treatise says: The five faculties are the faculties of eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body. The five objects are the objects of the five faculties, namely visible form, sound, smell, taste, and the tangible. The non-informing is non-informing form (form that does not signal to others so that they know it). Only with this extent is the name aggregate of form established. Here we should first speak of the characteristics of the five faculties. The verse says:

彼識依淨色，名眼等五根。

The pure form on which those consciousnesses rely is called the five faculties, eye and the rest.

論曰：彼謂前說色等五境，識即色、聲、香、味、觸識。彼識所依五種淨色，如其次第，應知即是眼等五根。如世尊說：苾芻當知，眼謂內處，四大所造淨色為性。如是廣說。或復彼者，謂前所說眼等五根，識即眼、耳、鼻、舌、身識。彼識所依五種淨色，名眼等根，是眼等識所依止義。如是便順《品類足論》。如彼論說：云何眼根？眼識所依淨色為性。如是廣說。已說五根。次說五境。頌曰：

The treatise says: "Those" means the five objects previously mentioned, form and the rest, and "consciousness" means the consciousnesses of form, sound, smell, taste, and touch. The five kinds of pure form on which those consciousnesses rely should be known, in this order, as the faculties of eye and the rest. As the World-Honored One said: Monks, you should know that the eye is an internal base, whose nature is pure form produced from the four great elements. And so on at length. Or again, "those" means the five faculties previously mentioned, eye and the rest, and "consciousness" means the consciousnesses of eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body. The five kinds of pure form on which those consciousnesses rely are called the faculties of eye and the rest, in the sense of being the support of the consciousnesses of eye and the rest. This accords with the Prakaranapada, which says: What is the eye faculty? Its nature is the pure form on which eye-consciousness relies. And so on at length. The five faculties have been explained. Next the five objects are explained. The verse says:

色二或二十，聲唯有八種，

Visible form is of two kinds, or of twenty; sound is of only eight kinds;

味六香四種，觸十一為性。

taste is of six, smell of four, and the tangible has eleven as its nature.

論曰：言色二者，一顯、二形。顯色有四：青、黃、赤、白，餘顯是此四色差別。形色有八，謂長為初不正為後。或二十者，即此色處復說二十，謂青、黃、赤、白、長、短、方、圓、高、下、正、不正、雲、煙、塵、霧、影、光、明、闇。有餘師說，空一顯色，第二十一。此中正者謂形平等，形不平等名為不正，地水氣騰說之為霧，日焰名光，月星火藥寶珠電等諸焰名明，障光明生於中餘色可見名影，翻此為闇。餘色易了故今不釋。或有色處有顯無形，謂青、黃、赤、白、影、光、明、闇。或有色處有形無顯。謂長等一分身表業性。或有色處有顯有形，謂所餘色。有餘師說：唯光明色有顯無形，現見世間青等色處有長等故。如何一事具有顯形？由於此中俱可知故。此中有者是有智義，非有境義。若爾，身表中亦應有顯智。已說色處，當說聲處。聲唯八種，謂有執受或無執受大種為因，及有情名、非有情名差別為四，此復可意及不可意差別成八。執受大種為因聲者，謂言手等所發音聲。風林河等所發音聲，名無執受大種為因。有情名聲謂語表業，餘聲則是非有情名。有說：有聲通有執受及無執受大種為因，如手鼓等合所生聲。如不許一顯色極微二四大造，聲亦應爾。已說聲處，當說味處。味有六種，甘、醋、醎、辛、苦、淡別故。已說味處，當說香處。香有四種：好香、惡香、等不等香，有差別故。本論中說香有三種：好香、惡香及平等香。已說香處，當說觸處。觸有十一，謂四大種、滑性、澁性、重性、輕性及冷、飢、渴。此中大種後當廣說。柔軟名滑。麁強為澁。可稱名重。翻此為輕。煖欲名冷。食慾名飢。飲欲名渴。此三於因立果名故，作如是說。如有頌言：

The treatise says: Visible form is of two kinds: color and shape. Colors are four: blue, yellow, red, and white; the other colors are varieties of these four. Shapes are eight, beginning with long and ending with uneven. Or there are twenty: this same visible-form base is also said to have twenty kinds, namely blue, yellow, red, white, long, short, square, round, high, low, even, uneven, cloud, smoke, dust, mist, shadow, light, brightness, and darkness. Some other masters say that space, as a visible color, is the twenty-first. Here "even" means that the shape is level, and a shape that is not level is called uneven. Vapor rising from earth and water is called mist; the blaze of the sun is called light; the blaze of the moon, stars, fire, medicines, jewels, and lightning is called brightness; what blocks the arising of light and brightness, so that other forms within it can be seen, is called shadow; the opposite of this is darkness. The other forms are easy to understand and so are not explained now. Or among the visible-form bases, some have color without shape, namely blue, yellow, red, white, shadow, light, brightness, and darkness. Some have shape without color, namely a part of bodily informing action, such as long and so on. Some have both color and shape, namely the other forms. Some other masters say that only light and brightness have color but no shape, since in the world we see that blue and the like have long and the like. How can one thing have both color and shape? Because both are known there. Here "have" means having cognition, not having an object. If so, then in bodily informing action there should also be cognition of color. Visible form has been explained; sound is next. Sound is of only eight kinds: it is first of four, according to whether its cause is the great elements that are or are not appropriated by a sentient being, and whether it is a name referring to a sentient being or not; and each of these is again either pleasant or unpleasant, making eight. Sound whose cause is appropriated great elements is the sound of speech, of hands, and so on. Sound produced by wind, forests, rivers, and the like is called sound whose cause is unappropriated great elements. Sound that is a name referring to a sentient being is vocal informing action; other sounds are names not referring to sentient beings. Some say that sound arises from both appropriated and unappropriated great elements, as in the sound produced by the meeting of hand and drum. Just as one does not allow a single color atom to be made from two or four elements, sound should be treated likewise. Sound has been explained; taste is next. Taste is of six kinds, distinguished as sweet, sour, salty, pungent, bitter, and bland. Taste has been explained; smell is next. Smell is of four kinds, because of differences: good smell, bad smell, equal smell, and unequal smell. In the original treatise it is said that smell is of three kinds: good smell, bad smell, and even smell. Smell has been explained; the tangible is next. The tangible is of eleven kinds, namely the four great elements, smoothness, roughness, heaviness, lightness, cold, hunger, and thirst. The great elements will be explained at length later. Softness is called smoothness. Coarseness and hardness are roughness. What can be weighed is called heaviness. The opposite of this is lightness. The desire for warmth is called cold. The desire for food is called hunger. The desire for drink is called thirst. These three are so called because the name of the effect is given to the cause, and so it is said. As a verse says:

諸佛出現樂，演說正法樂，

The appearance of the Buddhas is happiness; the teaching of the true Dharma is happiness;

僧眾和合樂，同修勇進樂。

the harmony of the Sangha is happiness; the diligent practice of all together is happiness.

於色界中無飢渴觸，有所餘觸。彼界衣服，別不可稱，聚則可稱。冷煖於彼雖無能損而有能益。傳說如此。此中已說多種色處。有時眼識緣一事生，謂於爾時各別了別。有時眼識緣多事生，謂於爾時不別了別，如遠觀察軍眾山林、無量顯形珠寶聚等。應知耳等諸識亦爾。有餘師說：身識極多緣五觸起，謂四大種，滑等隨一。有說：極多總緣一切十一觸起。若爾，五識總緣境故，應五識身取共相境非自相境。約處自相，許五識身取自相境非事自相，斯有何失？今應思擇，身舌二根兩境俱至，何識先起？隨境強盛彼識先生；境若均平舌識先起，食飲引身令相續故。已說根境及取境相，無表色相今次當說。頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) In the realm of form there is no tangible of hunger or thirst, but there are other tangibles. Clothing in that realm cannot be weighed separately but can be weighed when gathered. Cold and warmth, although unable to harm there, are able to benefit. So it is transmitted. Many kinds of visible-form bases have been explained here. At times eye-consciousness arises taking a single thing as its object, namely when it distinguishes each thing separately. At times eye-consciousness arises taking many things as its object, namely when it does not distinguish them separately, as when one looks from afar at an army, a mountain forest, or a heap of countless colored and shaped jewels. It should be known that the consciousnesses of ear and the rest are likewise. Some other masters say that body-consciousness arises, at most, taking five tangibles, namely the four great elements and any one of smoothness and the rest. Some say that at most it arises taking all eleven tangibles together. If so, since the five consciousnesses take their objects together, the five consciousness groups would take common characteristics rather than particular characteristics. In terms of the particular characteristic of the base, the five consciousness groups are allowed to take particular characteristics, not the particular characteristics of the thing; what fault is there in this? Now it should be examined: when the body and tongue faculties both reach their objects, which consciousness arises first? The consciousness of whichever object is stronger arises first; if the objects are equal, tongue-consciousness arises first, because food and drink draw the body forward and keep it continuing. The faculties and objects and the characteristics of grasping objects have been explained; the characteristic of non-informing form should be explained next. The verse says:

亂心無心等，隨流淨不淨，

With a distracted mind, with no mind, and so on, following the stream, pure or impure,

大種所造性，由此說無表。

it is derived from the great elements by nature; because of this it is called non-informing.

論曰：亂心者，謂此餘心。無心者，謂入無想及滅盡定。等，言顯示不亂有心。相似相續說名隨流。善與不善名淨不淨。為簡諸得相似相續，是故復言大種所造。毘婆沙說：造是因義，謂作生等五種因故。顯立名因，故言由此。無表雖以色業為性如有表業，而非表示令他了知，故名無表。說者顯此是師宗言，略說表業及定所生善不善色名為無表。既言無表大種所造，大種云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: "Distracted mind" means a mind other than this one. "No mind" means entering the attainment of non-perception and the attainment of cessation. The word "and so on" indicates the undistracted mind that has mind. Similar continuity of series is called "following the stream." Good and not good are called pure and impure. To exclude the attainments of similar series, it says again "derived from the great elements." The Vibhasha says: "derived" has the meaning of cause, namely because of the five kinds of cause, such as the producing cause. Because it shows the cause for establishing the name, it says "because of this." Although non-informing form has form-action as its nature like informing action, it does not signal to others so that they know, and so it is called non-informing. The word "said" shows that this is the master's school's statement: briefly, informing action, and the good and not-good forms born of concentration, are called non-informing. Since non-informing form is said to be derived from the great elements, what are the great elements? The verse says:

大種謂四界，即地水火風，

The great elements are the four elements, namely earth, water, fire, and wind;

能成持等業，堅濕煖動性。

they accomplish the works of supporting and the rest; their natures are solid, wet, warm, and moving.

論曰：地、水、火、風能持自相及所造色，故名為界，如是四界亦名大種，一切餘色所依性故、體寬廣故。或於地等增盛聚中形相大故，或起種種大事用故。此四大種能成何業？如其次第能成持、攝、熟、長四業，地界能持，水界能攝，火界能熟，風界能長。長謂增盛或復流引。業用既爾，自性云何？如其次第即用堅、濕、煖、動為性，地界堅性，水界濕性，火界煖性，風界動性。由此能引大種造色，令其相續生至餘方，如吹燈光，故名為動。《品類足論》及契經言：云何名風界？謂輕等動性。復說輕性為所造色，故應風界動為自性，舉業顯體故亦言輕。云何地等？地等界別。頌曰：

The treatise says: Earth, water, fire, and wind are able to hold their own characteristics and the derived forms, and so they are called elements. These four elements are also called great elements, because they are the nature of the support of all other forms, because their substance is broad, because they are great in form in the gatherings where earth and the rest increase, or because they give rise to great kinds of work. What works can these four great elements accomplish? In this order they accomplish the four works of supporting, gathering, maturing, and growing: the earth element supports, the water element gathers, the fire element matures, and the wind element grows. Growth means increase, or else it means flowing and drawing forward. Since the works are so, what are their own natures? In this order, solidity, wetness, warmth, and motion are their natures: the earth element has the nature of solidity, the water element wetness, the fire element warmth, and the wind element motion. Because it draws the derived forms of the great elements and makes them continue to arise up to other places, like blowing on a lamp's flame, it is called motion. The Prakaranapada and the sutra say: What is called the wind element? It is the nature of motion, such as lightness. It also says lightness is a derived form; so the wind element should be taken to have motion as its own nature, and lightness is mentioned because the work is cited to show the substance. What are earth and the rest? The distinctions of earth and the rest. The verse says:

地謂顯形色，隨世想立名；

Earth means color and shape, a name established according to the conception of the world;

水火亦復然，風即界亦爾。

water and fire are likewise, and wind is the element itself and is also so.

論曰：地謂顯形，色處為體，隨世間想假立此名。由諸世間相示地者，以顯形色而相示故。水火亦然。風即風界，世間於動立風名故。或如地等隨世想名，風亦顯形，故言亦爾。如世間說黑風團風，此用顯形表示風故。何故此蘊無表為後說為色耶？由變壞故。如世尊說：苾芻當知，由變壞故名色取蘊。誰能變壞？謂手觸故即便變壞。乃至廣說。變壞即是可惱壞義，故義品中作如是說：

The treatise says: Earth means color and shape, whose substance is the visible-form base; this name is provisionally established according to the conception of the world. Because worldly people point out earth by showing color and shape. Water and fire are likewise. Wind is the wind element itself, because the world establishes the name wind for motion. Or, like the names earth and the rest according to worldly conception, wind too is color and shape, and so it is said to be "likewise." Just as in the world one speaks of black wind and whirlwind, this uses color and shape to point out wind. Why is this aggregate, with non-informing form placed last, called form? Because of being broken down. As the World-Honored One said: Monks, you should know that because of being broken down it is called the aggregate of clinging of form. What can break it down? Even a touch of the hand breaks it down. And so on at length. Being broken down means being afflicted and ruined, and so in the Arthavarga it is said:

趣求諸欲人，常起於希望，

A person who seeks after desires constantly gives rise to longing;

諸欲若不遂，惱壞如箭中。

if the desires are not fulfilled, he is afflicted and ruined as if struck by an arrow.

色復云何？欲所惱壞，欲所擾惱變壞生故。有說：變礙故名為色。若爾，極微應不名色，無變礙故。此難不然。無一極微各處而住，眾微聚集變礙義成。過去未來應不名色，此亦曾當有變礙故；及彼類故，如所燒薪，諸無表色應不名色。有釋：表色有變礙故，無表隨彼亦受色名。譬如樹動影亦隨動。此釋不然，無變礙故。又表滅時無表應滅，如樹滅時影必隨滅。有釋：所依大種變礙，故無表業亦得色名。若爾，所依有變礙故，眼識等五應亦名色。此難不齊。無表依止大種轉時，如影依樹光依珠寶。眼等五識依眼等時則不如是，唯能為作助生緣故。此影依樹光依寶言，且非符順毘婆沙義。彼宗影等顯色極微，各自依止四大種故。設許影光依止樹寶，而無表色不同彼依，彼許所依大種雖滅，而無表色不隨滅故。是故所言未為釋難。復有別釋彼所難言：眼識等五所依不定，或有變礙謂眼等根，或無變礙謂無間意，無表所依則不如是，故前所難定為不齊，變礙名色理得成就。頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) What again is form? It is that which is afflicted and broken down by desire, because it is disturbed and afflicted by desire and so changes. Some say that it is called form because it changes and obstructs. If so, atoms should not be called form, because they have no changing and obstruction. This objection is not valid. There is no single atom dwelling separately in its own place; when many atoms gather, the meaning of changing and obstructing is established. The past and future would also not be called form; this too is not so, because they have had or will have changing and obstruction, and because they belong to that same class, like burned firewood. Non-informing forms would not be called form. Some explain: informing form has changing and obstruction, and non-informing form, following it, also receives the name form, just as when a tree moves its shadow moves along. This explanation is not valid, because non-informing form has no changing and obstruction. Moreover, when informing form ceases, non-informing form would have to cease, just as when a tree perishes its shadow must perish with it. Some explain: because the supporting great elements have changing and obstruction, non-informing action too receives the name form. If so, because the support has changing and obstruction, the five consciousnesses of eye and the rest would also have to be called form. This objection does not match. When non-informing form turns in dependence on the great elements, it is like shadow relying on a tree or light on a jewel. When the five consciousnesses of eye and the rest depend on the eye and the rest, it is not so, for they are only conditions that assist their arising. Moreover, these words about shadow relying on a tree and light on a jewel do not even accord with the Vibhasha's meaning. In that school, shadow and the like are color atoms, each relying on the four great elements. Even if one allowed shadow and light to rely on a tree or jewel, non-informing form is not the same as that reliance, since although the great elements relied upon are destroyed, non-informing form does not perish along with them. So what was said has not yet answered the objection. There is also another explanation that answers their objection: the supports of the five consciousnesses such as eye-consciousness are not fixed, for some have changing and obstruction, namely the eye and other faculties, and some have none, namely the immediately preceding mind; but the support of non-informing form is not so. Therefore the objection raised above is certainly not even, and the principle that what changes and obstructs is called form is established. The verse says:

此中根與境，許即十處界。

Here the faculties and the objects are allowed to be just the ten bases and elements.

論曰：此前所說色蘊性中，許即根境為十處界，謂於處門立為十處。眼處色處廣說乃至身處觸處。若於界門立為十界，眼界色界廣說乃至身界觸界。已說色蘊並立處界，當說受等三蘊處界。頌曰：

The Treatise says: In the aggregate of form discussed above, what is permitted is that the sense faculties and their objects constitute the ten sense-bases and elements; that is, in the gateway of sense-bases they are established as ten sense-bases: the eye-base and the form-base, and so on up to the body-base and the tangible-base. In the gateway of elements they are established as ten elements: the eye-element and the form-element, and so on up to the body-element and the tangible-element. Having explained the aggregate of form together with its sense-bases and elements, we should now explain the sense-bases and elements of the three aggregates beginning with feeling. The verse says:

受領納隨觸，想取像為體，

Feeling takes receiving and experiencing, following contact, as its nature; perception takes grasping an image as its essence,

四餘名行蘊，如是受等三，

The remainder of the four aggregates is called the aggregate of formations; thus feeling and the other two make three,

及無表無為，名法處法界。

together with unmanifested form and the unconditioned, are called the mental-object base and the mental-object element.

論曰：受蘊謂三，領納隨觸，即樂及苦、不苦不樂。此復分別成六受身，謂眼觸所生受乃至意觸所生受。想蘊謂能取像為體，即能執取青黃長短、男女怨親、苦樂等相。此復分別成六想身，應如受說。除前及後色、受、想、識，餘一切行名為行蘊。然薄伽梵於契經中說六思身為行蘊者，由最勝故。所以者何？行名造作，思是業性造作義強，故為最勝。是故佛說若能造作有漏有為名行取蘊。若不爾者，餘心所法及不相應，非蘊攝故應非苦集，則不可為應知應斷。如世尊說：若於一法未達未知，我說不能作苦邊際。未斷未滅說亦如是。是故定應許除四蘊餘有為行皆行蘊攝。即此所說受、想、行、蘊，及無表色、三種無為，如是七法於處門中立為法處，於界門中立為法界。已說受等三蘊處界，當說識蘊並立處界。頌曰：

The Treatise says: The aggregate of feeling is of three kinds, receiving and experiencing following contact, namely pleasant, painful, and neither painful nor pleasant. These are further divided into six groups of feeling, namely feeling born of eye-contact, up to feeling born of mind-contact. The aggregate of perception takes grasping an image as its essence, that is, it is able to apprehend characteristics such as blue and yellow, long and short, man and woman, enemy and friend, pain and pleasure. These are further divided into six groups of perception, to be understood as explained for feeling. Apart from the preceding form, feeling, and perception, and the consciousness that follows, all the remaining formations are called the aggregate of formations. However, the Bhagavan (the World-Honored One) said in the sutras that the six groups of volition are the aggregate of formations, and this is on account of their supremacy. Why? Formation means fabrication, and volition, being of the nature of karma, has the strongest sense of fabrication, and therefore is the most supreme. Thus the Buddha said that whatever can fabricate what is defiled and conditioned is called the aggregate of formations that is grasped. If it were not so, the other mental factors and the dissociated dharmas, not being included in the aggregates, would not be suffering or its origin, and so could not be what should be known or what should be abandoned. As the World-Honored One said: If one has not penetrated or known a single dharma, I say one cannot make an end of suffering. The same is said of what is not yet abandoned and not yet extinguished. Therefore it must be admitted that, apart from the four aggregates, all other conditioned formations are included in the aggregate of formations. These aggregates just described, namely feeling, perception, and formations, together with unmanifested form and the three kinds of unconditioned dharmas, make seven dharmas, which in the gateway of sense-bases are established as the mental-object base, and in the gateway of elements as the mental-object element. Having explained the sense-bases and elements of the three aggregates beginning with feeling, we should now explain the aggregate of consciousness together with its sense-base and element. The verse says:

識謂各了別，此即名意處，

Consciousness is the discrimination of each respective object, and this is called the mind-base,

及七界應知，六識轉為意。

and it should be known to be seven elements, the six consciousnesses being transformed into mind.

論曰：各各了別彼彼境界，總取境相故名識蘊。此復差別有六識身，謂眼識身至意識身。應知如是所說識蘊，於處門中立為意處。於界門中立為七界，謂眼識界至意識界，即此六識轉為意界。如是此中所說五蘊，即十二處並十八界，謂除無表，諸餘色蘊即名十處，亦名十界。受想行蘊、無表、無為總名法處，亦名法界。應知識蘊即名意處，亦名七界，謂六識界及與意界。豈不識蘊唯六識身，異此說何復為意界？更無異法。即於此中頌曰：

The Treatise says: Because it discriminates each of the various objective realms and apprehends the general characteristics of objects, it is called the aggregate of consciousness. This is further distinguished into the six groups of consciousness, namely the eye-consciousness group up to the mind-consciousness group. It should be known that the aggregate of consciousness thus described is established in the gateway of sense-bases as the mind-base. In the gateway of elements it is established as seven elements, namely the eye-consciousness element up to the mind-consciousness element, that is, these six consciousnesses transformed become the mind element. Thus the five aggregates discussed here are the twelve sense-bases and the eighteen elements: apart from unmanifested form, all the remaining aggregate of form is called the ten sense-bases and also called the ten elements. The aggregates of feeling, perception, and formations, together with unmanifested form and the unconditioned, are collectively called the mental-object base and also the mental-object element. It should be known that the aggregate of consciousness is called the mind-base and also the seven elements, namely the six consciousness elements and the mind element. Is the aggregate of consciousness not simply the six groups of consciousness? Apart from them, what else could be called the mind element? There is no other dharma. On this point the verse says:

由即六識身，無間滅為意。

That very six groups of consciousness, having ceased without interval, are the mind.

論曰：即六識身無間滅已，能生後識故名意界，謂如此子即名餘父，又如此果即名餘種。若爾實界應唯十七或唯十二，六識與意更相攝故，何緣得立十八界耶？頌曰：

The Treatise says: When the six groups of consciousness have ceased without interval and are able to give rise to the subsequent consciousness, they are called the mind element, just as this son is called the father of the next one, and just as this fruit is called the seed of the next. If this were so, then the real elements should be only seventeen or only twelve, since the six consciousnesses and the mind include one another; for what reason are eighteen elements established? The verse says:

成第六依故，十八界應知。

In order to complete the support of the sixth, the eighteen elements should be known.

論曰：如五識界別有眼等五界為依，第六意識無別所依，為成此依故說意界。如是所依能依境界，應知各六界成十八。若爾，無學最後念心應非意界，此無間滅後識不生，非意界故。不爾，此已住意性故、闕餘緣故，後識不生。此中蘊攝一切有為，取蘊唯攝一切有漏，處界總攝一切法盡。別攝如是，總攝云何？頌曰：

The Treatise says: Just as the five consciousness elements each have the five faculties such as the eye as their support, the sixth, mind-consciousness, has no separate support, and so, to establish this support, the mind element is taught. Thus the support, the supported, and the object should be known as six elements each, making eighteen. If so, then the last thought of one beyond training would not be a mind element, since after it ceases without interval no consciousness arises, and so it is not a mind element. Not so: because it has already settled in the nature of mind, and because it lacks the other conditions, the subsequent consciousness does not arise. Here the aggregates include all that is conditioned, the aggregates of grasping include only what is defiled, and the sense-bases and elements together include all dharmas without remainder. If this is how they include separately, how do they include in general? The verse says:

總攝一切法，由一蘊處界，

The general inclusion of all dharmas is by one aggregate, sense-base, and element,

攝自性非餘，以離他性故。

including their own nature and nothing else, because they are separate from other natures.

論曰：由一色蘊意處法界，應知總攝一切法盡。謂於諸處就勝義說，唯攝自性不攝他性。所以者何？法與他性恆相離故。此離於彼而言攝者，其理不然。且如眼根，唯攝色蘊眼處眼界苦集諦等，是彼性故不攝餘蘊餘處界等，離彼性故。若於諸處就世俗說，應知亦以餘法攝餘。如四攝事攝徒眾等，眼耳鼻三處各有二，何緣界體非二十一？此難非理。所以者何？頌曰：

The Treatise says: By one aggregate of form, the mind-base, and the mental-object element, it should be known that all dharmas are included without remainder. In regard to the sense-bases, speaking in terms of ultimate truth, they include only their own nature and not other natures. Why? Because a dharma is always separate from other natures. To say that this includes that, though separate from it, is not reasonable. For example, the eye faculty includes only the aggregate of form, the eye-base, the eye-element, and the truths of suffering and origin, because these are of its nature; it does not include other aggregates, other sense-bases, and other elements, because they are separate from its nature. In regard to the sense-bases in terms of conventional truth, it should be known that other dharmas can also include other dharmas, as the four means of embracing include the assembly and so on. The eye, ear, and nose bases each come in two; why is the number of elements not twenty-one? This objection is unreasonable. Why? The verse says:

類境識同故，雖二界體一。

Because of sameness of kind, object, and consciousness, though two, the element is one.

論曰：類同者，謂二處同是眼自性故。境同者，謂二處同用色為境故。識同者，謂二處同為眼識依故。由此眼界雖二而一。耳鼻亦應如是安立。若爾，何緣生依二處？頌曰：

The Treatise says: Sameness of kind means that the two bases both have the eye as their own nature. Sameness of object means that the two bases both take form as their object. Sameness of consciousness means that the two bases both serve as the support of the eye-consciousness. Therefore, though the eye-element is two, it is one. The ear and nose should be established in the same way. If so, why do the bases arise in pairs? The verse says:

然為令端嚴，眼等各生二。

It is only to make the body well-formed that the eye and the others are each born in two.

論曰：為所依身相端嚴故，界體雖一而兩處生。若眼耳根處唯生一，鼻無二穴身不端嚴。此釋不然。若本來爾，誰言醜陋？又貓鵄等雖生二處，有何端嚴？若爾，三根何緣生二？為所發識明瞭端嚴。現見世間閉一目等，了別色等便不分明，是故三根各生二處。已說諸蘊及處界攝，當說其義。此蘊處界別義云何？頌曰：

The Treatise says: In order that the bodily form of the support be well-formed, though the element is one, it arises in two places. If the eye and ear faculties arose in only one place, and the nose lacked two nostrils, the body would not be well-formed. This explanation is not right. If it were originally so, who would call it ugly? Moreover cats, owls, and the like, though born with two places, what is well-formed about them? If so, why are the three faculties born in twos? It is so that the consciousness they give rise to is clear and well-formed. We see in the world that when one eye is closed, the discrimination of form and so on is no longer clear; therefore the three faculties are each born in two places. Having explained how the aggregates are included in the sense-bases and elements, we should now explain their meanings. What are the distinct meanings of aggregate, sense-base, and element? The verse says:

聚生門種族，是蘊處界義。

Heap, gateway of arising, and lineage are the meanings of aggregate, sense-base, and element.

論曰：諸有為法和合聚義是蘊義，如契經言：諸所有色，若過去若未來若現在、若內若外、若麁若細、若劣若勝、若遠若近，如是一切略為一聚，說名色蘊。由此聚義，蘊義得成。於此經中，無常已滅名過去、若未已生名未來、已生未謝名現在，自身名內、所餘名外。或約處辯，有對名麁、無對名細。或相待立。若言相待，麁細不成。此難不然，所待異故。待彼為麁未嘗為細、待彼為細未嘗為麁，猶如父子苦集諦等，染汙名劣、不染名勝，去來名遠、現在名近，乃至識蘊應知亦然。而有差別，謂依五根名麁，唯依意根名細。或約地辯，毘婆沙師所說如是。大德法救復作是言：五根所取名麁色，所餘名細色。非可意者名劣色，所餘名勝色。不可見處名遠色，在可見處名近色。過去等色如自名顯，受等亦然，隨所依力，應知遠近麁細同前。心心所法，生長門義是處義。訓釋詞者，謂能生長心心所法故名為處，是能生長彼作用義。法種族義是界義，如一山中有多銅鐵金銀等族，說名多界。如是一身或一相續，有十八類諸法種族，名十八界。此中種族是生本義。如是眼等誰之生本？謂自種類同類因故。若爾，無為應不名界，心心所法生之本故。有說：界聲表種類義，謂十八法種類自性各別不同，名十八界。若言聚義是蘊義者，蘊應假有，多實積集共所成故，如聚如我。此難不然，一實極微亦名蘊故。若爾，不應言聚義是蘊義，非一實物有聚義故。有說：能荷重擔義是蘊義，由此世間說肩名蘊，物所聚故。或有說者：可分段義是蘊義，故世有言：汝三蘊還，我當與汝。此釋越經，經說聚義是蘊義故，如契經言：諸所有色若過去等。廣說如前。若謂此經顯過去等一一色等各別名蘊，是故一切過去色等一一實物各各名蘊。此執非理，故彼經言：如是一切略為一聚說名蘊故，是故如聚，蘊定假有。

The Treatise says: The meaning of an aggregate is the combined heap of conditioned dharmas. As the sutra says: All form whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, coarse or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all this is gathered briefly into one heap and called the aggregate of form. By this meaning of heap, the meaning of aggregate is established. In this sutra, what is impermanent and already ceased is called past, what has not yet arisen is called future, what has arisen and not yet passed away is called present; one's own body is called internal, others are called external. Or, in terms of sense-bases, what has resistance is called coarse and what has no resistance is called subtle. Or they are established relatively. If they are relative, coarse and subtle would not hold. This objection is not right, because what they are relative to differs. Relative to this it is coarse and never subtle; relative to that it is subtle and never coarse, like father and son, or the truths of suffering and origin. What is defiled is called inferior and what is undefiled is called superior; the past and future are called far and the present is called near; and up to the aggregate of consciousness, it should be known to be likewise. There is a distinction, namely that what depends on the five faculties is called coarse, and what depends only on the mind faculty is called subtle. Or it is distinguished by plane; this is what the Vaibhashika masters say. The Elder Dharmatrata further says: What is grasped by the five faculties is called coarse form, and the rest is called subtle form. What is not agreeable is called inferior form and the rest is called superior form. What is in an invisible place is called far form and what is in a visible place is called near form. Past form and the like are shown by their own names; feeling and the others are likewise, and according to the force of their supports, the far, near, coarse, and subtle should be understood as before. The meaning of sense-base, as the gateway of arising and growth of mind and mental factors, is the meaning of sense-base. In explaining the word: because it can give rise to and make grow the mind and mental factors, it is called a base, meaning the function of arising and growing them. The meaning of lineage is the meaning of element, as in one mountain there are many lodes of copper, iron, gold, and silver, and they are called many elements. In the same way, in one body or one continuum there are eighteen kinds of dharma lineages, and they are called the eighteen elements. Here lineage means the source of arising. Of whom, then, are the eye and the others the source of arising? Because they are the homogeneous cause of their own kind. If so, the unconditioned should not be called an element, since it is not the source of arising of mind and mental factors. Some say: The word element indicates the meaning of kind, that is, the eighteen dharmas each have a different nature of their own kind, and are called the eighteen elements. If the meaning of heap is the meaning of aggregate, then the aggregate should be a mere designation, since it is formed by the combined accumulation of many real things, like a heap or like a self. This objection is not right, because even a single real atom is called an aggregate. If so, one should not say that the meaning of heap is the meaning of aggregate, since no single real thing has the meaning of heap. Some say: The meaning of being able to bear a heavy load is the meaning of aggregate; hence in the world the shoulder is called a skandha, since things are piled upon it. Others say: The meaning of being divisible into parts is the meaning of aggregate; hence the worldly saying: Return your three portions and I will give you something. This explanation goes against the sutra, because the sutra says that the meaning of heap is the meaning of aggregate, as in the sutra: All form whatsoever, whether past and so on, as explained in full above. If one says this sutra shows that each single past form and so on is separately called an aggregate, so that every single real thing of past form and so on is itself called an aggregate, this view is unreasonable, because that sutra says: all this is gathered briefly into one heap and called the aggregate. Therefore, like a heap, the aggregate is surely a mere designation.

若爾，應許諸有色處亦是假有，眼等極微要多積聚成生門故。此難非理，多積聚中一一極微有因用故。若不爾者，根境相助共生識等應非別處，是則應無十二處別。然毘婆沙作如是說。對法諸師若觀假蘊，彼說極微一界一處一蘊少分；若不觀者，彼說極微即是一界一處一蘊。此應於分，假謂有分，如燒少衣亦說燒衣。何故世尊於所知境，由蘊等門作三種說？頌曰：

If so, it should be admitted that all sense-bases with form are also mere designations, because the atoms of the eye and so on must be accumulated in great number to become a gateway of arising. This objection is not reasonable, because among the many accumulated atoms each single atom has a causal function. If it were not so, the faculty and the object, assisting each other in jointly producing consciousness and so on, would not be separate sense-bases, and then the distinction of the twelve sense-bases would not hold. However, the Vibhasha speaks thus: The Abhidharma masters, if they regard the aggregate as a designation, say that an atom is a small part of one element, one sense-base, and one aggregate; if they do not so regard it, they say that an atom is itself one element, one sense-base, and one aggregate. This should be understood as a designation for the whole by reference to a part, as when a small part of a garment is burned one also says the garment is burned. Why did the World-Honored One, regarding the objects of knowledge, speak in three ways through the gateways of aggregates and so on? The verse says:

愚根樂三故，說蘊處界三。

Because of delusion, faculty, and inclination, being of three kinds, the aggregates, sense-bases, and elements, three, are taught.

論曰：所化有情有三品故，世尊為說蘊等三門。傳說：有情愚有三種，或愚心所總執為我，或唯愚色、或愚色心。根亦有三，謂利、中、鈍。樂亦三種，謂樂、略、中，及廣文故。如其次第，世尊為說蘊處界三。何緣世尊說餘心所總置行蘊，別分受想為二蘊耶？頌曰：

The Treatise says: Because the beings to be taught are of three grades, the World-Honored One taught the three gateways of the aggregates and the rest. It is said that the delusion of beings is of three kinds: some are deluded about mind and mental factors and grasp them in general as a self; some are deluded only about form; some are deluded about both form and mind. Faculties are also three: sharp, middling, and dull. Inclinations are also of three kinds, namely those who like brief, middling, and extensive teachings. In this order, the World-Honored One taught the three of aggregates, sense-bases, and elements. Why did the World-Honored One put the other mental factors together in the aggregate of formations, and separate feeling and perception as two aggregates? The verse says:

諍根生死因，及次第因故，

Because they are the root of disputes, the cause of birth and death, and the cause of the sequence,

於諸心所法，受想別為蘊。

among the mental factors, feeling and perception are made separate aggregates.

論曰：諍根有二，謂著諸欲及著諸見。此二受想，如其次第為最勝因，味受力故貪著諸欲，倒想力故貪著諸見。又生死法以受及想為最勝因，由耽著受起倒想故生死輪迴。由此二因及後當說次第因故，應知別立受想為蘊。其次第因，隣次當辯。何故無為說在處界，非蘊攝耶？頌曰：

The Treatise says: The root of disputes is twofold, namely attachment to desires and attachment to views. These two, feeling and perception, in this order are the most supreme causes: through the force of tasting feeling one is greedily attached to desires, and through the force of inverted perception one is greedily attached to views. Moreover, the dharmas of birth and death have feeling and perception as their most supreme causes, because through indulgent attachment to feeling one produces inverted perception, and so revolves in birth and death. Because of these two causes and the cause of sequence to be explained below, it should be known that feeling and perception are established as separate aggregates. As for the cause of sequence, it will be examined in due order. Why are the unconditioned taught among the sense-bases and elements and not included in the aggregates? The verse says:

蘊不攝無為，義不相應故。

The aggregates do not include the unconditioned, because the meanings do not correspond.

論曰：三無為法不可說在色等蘊中，與色等義不相應故。謂體非色乃至非識，亦不可說為第六蘊，彼與蘊義不相應故。聚義是蘊，如前具說。謂無為法，非如色等有過去等品類差別，可略一聚名無為蘊。又言取蘊為顯染依，染淨二依蘊言所顯。無為於此二義都無，義不相應故不立蘊。有說：如瓶破非瓶，如是蘊息應非蘊，彼於處界例應成失。如是已說諸蘊廢立，當說次第。頌曰：

The Treatise says: The three unconditioned dharmas cannot be said to be among the aggregates of form and the rest, because their meanings do not correspond with those of form and the rest. That is, their essence is not form and so on up to not consciousness, and it also cannot be called a sixth aggregate, because those do not correspond to the meaning of aggregate. The meaning of heap is the meaning of aggregate, as fully explained before. The unconditioned dharmas do not, like form and the rest, have distinctions of kind such as past, so they cannot be gathered briefly into one heap called the aggregate of the unconditioned. It is also said that the aggregates of grasping reveal the basis of defilement, and that the word aggregate reveals the two bases of defilement and purity. The unconditioned has neither of these two meanings, so the meaning does not correspond, and so no aggregate is established. Someone says: Just as when a pot is broken it is no longer a pot, so when an aggregate ceases it would no longer be an aggregate, and then the same fault would follow by analogy for the sense-bases and elements. Having thus explained the establishment of the aggregates, we should now explain their sequence. The verse says:

隨麁染器等，界別次第立。

According to coarseness, defilement, vessel and so on, the sequence of the elements is established.

論曰：色有對故諸蘊中麁，無色中麁唯受行相，故世說我手等痛言。待二想麁，男女等想易了知故。行麁過識，貪瞋等行易了知故。識最為細，總取境相難分別故。由此隨麁立蘊次第。或從無始生死已來，男女於色更相愛樂，此由耽著樂受味故，耽受復因倒想生故，此倒想生由煩惱故，如是煩惱依識而生。此及前三皆染汙識，由此隨染立蘊次第。或色如器、受類飲食、想同助味、行似廚人、識喻食者，故隨器等立蘊次第。或隨界別立蘊次第，謂欲界中有諸妙欲，色相顯了。色界靜慮有勝喜等，受相顯了。三無色中取空等相，想相顯了。第一有中思最為勝，行相顯了。此即識住，識住其中顯似世間田種次第。是故諸蘊次第如是。由此五蘊無增減過，即由如是諸次第因，離行別立受想二蘊，謂受與想於諸行中相麁生染、類食同助，二界中強故別立蘊。處界門中應先辨說六根次第，由斯境識次第可知。頌曰：

The Treatise says: Because form has resistance, it is the coarsest among the aggregates; among the formless, the coarsest is only the characteristic of feeling, and so the world says words like: my hand and so on hurts. Next, perception is coarse, because perception of man and woman and the like is easily known. Formations are coarser than consciousness, because greed, anger, and such actions are easily known. Consciousness is the subtlest, because it apprehends the general characteristics of objects and is hard to discriminate. Thus the sequence of the aggregates is established according to coarseness. Or, from beginningless birth and death until now, men and women have loved and delighted in form with one another; this is because of indulgent attachment to the taste of pleasant feeling; indulgence in feeling again arises from inverted perception; this inverted perception arises from afflictions; and these afflictions arise depending on consciousness. This one together with the preceding three are all defiled consciousness; thus the sequence of the aggregates is established according to defilement. Or form is like a vessel, feeling like food and drink, perception like seasoning, formations like the cook, and consciousness like the eater; thus the sequence of the aggregates is established according to the vessel and so on. Or the sequence of the aggregates is established according to the distinction of realms: in the desire realm there are many wonderful desires, and the characteristic of form is manifest; in the meditation heavens of the form realm there is superior joy and so on, and the characteristic of feeling is manifest; in the three formless realms the characteristics of space and so on are grasped, and the characteristic of perception is manifest; in the highest existence volition is most excellent, and the characteristic of formations is manifest; and this is the abode of consciousness, in which consciousness dwells, and its sequence resembles that of field and seed in the world. Thus is the sequence of the aggregates. Therefore the five aggregates have no fault of excess or deficiency, and by these causes of sequence, feeling and perception are set up as two aggregates apart from formations: feeling and perception among the formations are coarse in characteristic, give rise to defilement, are like food and seasoning, and are strong in two realms, and so they are established as separate aggregates. In the gateways of sense-bases and elements, the sequence of the six faculties should be explained first, and from this the sequence of the objects and consciousnesses can be known. The verse says:

前五境唯現，四境唯所造，

The first five objects are only present, the four objects are only derived,

餘用遠速明，或隨處次第。

and the rest by far reach, swiftness, clarity, or according to the sequence of the bases.

論曰：於六根中，眼等前五唯取現境，是故先說。意境不定，三世無為，或唯取一或二三四。所言四境唯所造者，前流至此。五中前四境唯所造，是故先說。身境不定，或取大種、或取造色、或二俱取，餘謂前四。如其所應用遠速明，是故先說。謂眼耳根取遠境故，在二先說。二中眼用遠故先說，遠見山河不聞聲故。又眼用速，先遠見人撞擊鍾鼓後聞聲故。鼻舌兩根用俱非遠。先說鼻者，由速明故。如對香美諸飲食時，鼻先嗅香、舌後甞味。或於身中隨所依處上下差別說根次第，謂眼所依最居其上，次耳鼻舌身多居下，意無方處。有即依止諸根生者，故最後說。何緣十處皆色蘊攝，唯於一種立色處名？又十二處體皆是法，唯於一種立法處名？頌曰：

The Treatise says: Among the six faculties, the first five, the eye and the others, grasp only present objects, and so they are spoken of first. The objects of mind are not fixed: it may take the three times and the unconditioned, and may take only one, or two, three, or four. As for the statement "the four objects are only derived," the flow of the preceding line comes down to here. Among the five, the first four have only derived form as their objects, and so they are spoken of first. The object of body is not fixed: it may take the great elements, or derived form, or both; the "rest" means the preceding four. As is appropriate, they are ordered by far reach, swiftness, and clarity, and so they are spoken of first. That is, the eye and ear faculties grasp distant objects, and so are spoken of first among the two. Among the two, the eye is spoken of first because it acts at a distance: one sees mountains and rivers from afar without hearing their sound. Moreover the eye acts swiftly: one first sees from afar a person striking a bell or drum and only afterwards hears the sound. The nose and tongue faculties both do not act at a distance. The nose is spoken of first because of its swiftness and clarity: when facing fragrant and delicious food and drink, the nose first smells the fragrance and the tongue afterwards tastes the flavor. Or the sequence of the faculties is stated according to the differences of upper and lower in the places they depend on in the body: the support of the eye is at the very top, then the ear, nose, tongue, and body are mostly lower, and the mind has no fixed place. Because it arises depending on all the faculties, it is spoken of last. For what reason are all ten bases included in the aggregate of form, yet only one is given the name of form-base? And why, though the essence of all twelve bases is dharma, is only one given the name of mental-object base? The verse says:

為差別最勝，攝多增上法，

For the sake of distinction, supremacy, inclusion of many, and the dharma of dominance,

故一處名色，一名為法處。

one base is called form, and one is called the mental-object base.

論曰：為差別者，為令了知境有境性種種差別，故於色蘊就差別相建立十處不總為一。若無眼等差別想名，而體是色立名色處，此為眼等名所簡別，雖標總稱而即別名。又諸色中色處最勝，故立通名。由有對故，手等觸時即便變壞。及有見故，可示在此在彼差別。又諸世間唯於此處同說為色，非於眼等。又為差別立一法處，非於一切，如色應知。又於此中攝受想等眾多法故，應立通名。又增上法，所謂涅槃，此中攝故獨立為法。有餘師說：色處中有二十種色最麁顯故，肉、天、聖慧三眼境故，獨立色名。法處中有諸法名故、諸法智故，獨立法名。諸契經中，有餘種種蘊及處界，名想可得。為即此攝？為離此耶？彼皆此攝，如應當知。且辯攝餘諸蘊名想。頌曰：

The Treatise says: "For the sake of distinction" means that, in order to make known the various differences of object and subject, the ten bases are established in the aggregate of form according to their distinct characteristics and are not combined into one. If there were no distinguishing notions and names such as eye, and the essence being form were established as the form-base, then this would be distinguished by the names of the eye and so on, and though it bears a general name it is in fact a particular name. Moreover, among forms the form-base is the most supreme, and so the general name is established for it. Because of resistance, when touched by a hand and so on, it is at once altered and destroyed. And because of visibility, it can be pointed out as here or there. Also, among the world's people, it is only of this base that they commonly say form, and not of the eye and the rest. Likewise, for the sake of distinction one mental-object base is established, and not for all, as should be understood from form. Furthermore, because many dharmas such as feeling and perception are included in it, the general name should be established. Also, because of the dharma of dominance, namely nirvana, which is included in it, it alone is called dharma. Some other masters say: In the form-base there are twenty kinds of form that are most coarse and manifest, and because it is the object of the three eyes, the fleshly, the divine, and the eye of holy wisdom, it alone is called form. In the mental-object base there are the names of dharmas and the knowledge of dharmas, and so it alone is called dharma. In the various sutras there are various other aggregates, sense-bases, and elements, whose names and notions are found. Are they included in these, or apart from these? All of them are included in these, as is appropriate to know. First let us explain the names and notions of the other aggregates included. The verse says:

牟尼說法蘊，數有八十千，

The Muni taught the aggregates of the Dharma, numbering eighty thousand,

彼體語或名，此色行蘊攝。

whose essence is speech or names, and which are included in the aggregates of form and formations.

論曰：諸說佛教語為體者，彼說法蘊皆色蘊攝。諸說佛教名為體者，彼說法蘊皆行蘊攝。此諸法蘊其量云何？頌曰：

The Treatise says: Those who say the Buddha's teaching has speech as its essence say that the aggregates of the Dharma are all included in the aggregate of form. Those who say the Buddha's teaching has names as its essence say that the aggregates of the Dharma are all included in the aggregate of formations. What is the measure of these aggregates of the Dharma? The verse says:

有言諸法蘊，量如彼論說；

Some say the aggregates of the Dharma have a measure equal to that treatise;

或隨蘊等言，如實行對治。

or they follow the words aggregate and so on, as truly the remedies for conduct.

論曰：有諸師言：八萬法蘊一一量等《法蘊足論》，謂彼一一有六千頌，如對法中《法蘊足》說。或說：法蘊隨蘊等言一一差別數有八萬，謂蘊、處、界、緣起、諦、食、靜慮、無量、無色、解脫、勝處、遍處、覺品、神通、無諍、願智、無礙解等，一一教門名一法蘊。如實說者，所化有情有貪瞋等八萬行別，為對治彼八萬行故，世尊宣說八萬法蘊。如彼所說八萬法蘊皆此五中二蘊所攝，如是餘處諸蘊處界類亦應然。頌曰：

The Treatise says: Some masters say that each of the eighty thousand aggregates of the Dharma has a measure equal to the Dharmaskandha-pada, that is, each has six thousand verses, as taught in the Dharmaskandha-pada of the Abhidharma. Or it is said that the aggregates of the Dharma, following the words aggregate and so on, number eighty thousand in their distinctions, namely aggregates, sense-bases, elements, dependent origination, truths, foods, meditations, immeasurables, formless states, liberations, spheres of mastery, spheres of totality, factors of enlightenment, spiritual powers, non-contention, wisdom of vows, unobstructed understanding, and so on, each gateway of teaching being called one aggregate of the Dharma. Speaking truly, the beings to be taught have eighty thousand distinct kinds of conduct such as greed and anger, and in order to remedy these eighty thousand, the World-Honored One proclaimed eighty thousand aggregates of the Dharma. Since all those eighty thousand aggregates of the Dharma are included in two of these five aggregates, the same should be said for the other aggregates, sense-bases, and elements in other places. The verse says:

如是餘蘊等，各隨其所應，

Thus the other aggregates and so on, each as is appropriate,

攝在前說中，應審觀自相。

are included in what was explained above, and one should carefully examine their own characteristics.

論曰：餘契經中諸蘊處界，隨應攝在前所說中，如此論中所說蘊等，應審觀彼一一自相。且諸經中說餘五蘊，謂戒、定、慧、解脫、解脫智見五蘊，彼中戒蘊此色蘊攝，彼餘四蘊此行蘊攝。又諸經說十遍處等，前八遍處無貪性故，此法處攝；若兼助伴五蘊性故，即此意處法處所攝。攝八勝處應知亦爾。空、識遍處、空無邊等四無色處，四蘊性故，即此意處、法處所攝。五解脫處，慧為性故，此法處攝；若兼助伴，即此聲意法處所攝。復有二處，謂無想有情天處及非想非非想處，初處即此十處所攝，無香味故；後處即此意法處攝，四蘊性故。又《多界經》說界差別有六十二，隨其所應當知皆此十八界攝。且彼經中所說六界，地水火風四界已說，空識二界未說其相。為即虛空名為空界、為一切識名識界耶？不爾，云何？頌曰：

The Treatise says: The aggregates, sense-bases, and elements in the other sutras, as appropriate, are included in what was explained above; as for the aggregates and so on explained in this treatise, one should carefully examine the own-characteristic of each. The other five aggregates mentioned in the sutras, namely the aggregates of morality, concentration, wisdom, liberation, and the knowledge and vision of liberation: among these, the aggregate of morality is included in this aggregate of form, and the other four are included in this aggregate of formations. Again, the sutras speak of the ten spheres of totality and so on: the first eight spheres of totality, being of the nature of non-greed, are included in the mental-object base; if one includes their accompanying companions, being of the nature of the five aggregates, they are included in the mind-base and the mental-object base. The inclusion of the eight spheres of mastery should be understood likewise. The spheres of totality of space and consciousness, and the four formless bases such as limitless space, being of the nature of the four aggregates, are included in the mind-base and the mental-object base. The five bases of liberation, being of the nature of wisdom, are included in the mental-object base; if one includes their companions, they are included in the sound-base, mind-base, and mental-object base. There are also two bases, namely the heaven of non-percipient beings and the base of neither perception nor non-perception; the first is included in these ten bases, because it has no smell or taste; the latter is included in the mind-base and mental-object base, being of the nature of the four aggregates. Moreover, the Sutra of Many Elements says that there are sixty-two differences of elements, and as is appropriate, they should be known as all included in these eighteen elements. Among the six elements spoken of in that sutra, the four elements of earth, water, fire, and wind have already been explained, but the characteristics of the space and consciousness elements have not been explained. Is space simply called the space element, and is every consciousness called the consciousness element? No. How then? The verse says:

空界謂竅隙，傳說是明闇；

The space element is the cavity and gap, said to be light and darkness;

識界有漏識，有情生所依。

the consciousness element is defiled consciousness, the support of the birth of beings.

論曰：諸有門窓及口鼻等內外竅隙，名為空界。如是竅隙云何應知？傳說：竅隙即是明闇，非離明闇竅隙可取，故說空界明闇為體。應知此體不離晝夜，即此說名隣阿伽色。傳說：阿伽謂積集色，極能為礙故名阿伽。此空界色與彼相隣，是故說名隣阿伽色。有說：阿伽即空界色，此中無礙故名阿伽。即阿伽色餘礙相隣，是故說名隣阿伽色。諸有漏識名為識界，云何不說諸無漏識為識界耶？由許六界是諸有情生所依故，如是諸界從續生心至命終心恆持生故。諸無漏法則不如是。彼六界中，前四即此觸界所攝，第五即此色界所攝，第六即此七心界攝。彼經餘界如其所應，皆即此中十八界攝。

The Treatise says: The internal and external cavities and gaps, such as doors and windows and mouth and nose, are called the space element. How should these cavities and gaps be known? It is said that the cavities and gaps are just light and darkness; apart from light and darkness no cavity or gap can be grasped, and so it is said that the space element has light and darkness as its essence. It should be known that this essence is not apart from day and night, and it is this that is called form adjacent to agha (form adjacent to obstructive accumulation). It is said that agha means accumulated form: because it is extremely able to obstruct, it is called agha. This form of the space element is adjacent to those, and so it is called form adjacent to agha. Some say: Agha is itself the form of the space element, and here it has no obstruction, and so it is called agha; the other obstructive form adjacent to this agha form is therefore called form adjacent to agha. Defiled consciousnesses are called the consciousness element; why are undefiled consciousnesses not called the consciousness element? Because the six elements are admitted to be the support of the birth of sentient beings, these elements, from the mind of rebirth-linking to the mind at the end of life, constantly sustain birth. Undefiled dharmas are not so. Among those six elements, the first four are included in the tangible element, the fifth in the form element, and the sixth in the seven mind elements. The other elements in that sutra, as is appropriate, are all included in these eighteen elements.

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by the Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under imperial decree.

分別界品第一之二

Chapter 1, Analysis of the Elements, Part 2.

復次於前所說十八界中，幾有見、幾無見？幾有對、幾無對？幾善、幾不善、幾無記？頌曰：

Furthermore, among the eighteen elements (dhatus) spoken of above, how many are visible and how many invisible? How many are resistant and how many non-resistant? How many are wholesome, how many unwholesome, and how many neutral? The verse says:

一有見謂色，十有色有對，

One is visible, namely form; ten are material and resistant,

此除色聲八，無記餘三種。

Of these, apart from form and sound, eight are neutral; the other elements are of three kinds.

論曰：十八界中色界有見，以可示現此彼差別。由此義準，說餘無見。如是已說有見無見。唯色蘊攝十界有對，對是礙義。此復三種：障礙、境界、所緣異故。障礙有對，謂十色界。自於他處被礙不生，如手礙手或石礙石或二相礙。境界有對，謂十二界法界一分諸有境法於色等境，故《施設論》作如是言：有眼於水有礙非陸，如魚等眼。有眼於陸有礙非水，從多分說，如人等眼。有眼俱礙，如畢舍遮、室獸摩羅及捕魚人、蝦蟇等眼。有俱非礙，謂除前相。有眼於夜有礙非晝，如諸蝙蝠鵂鶹等眼。有眼於晝有礙非夜，從多分說，如人等眼。有眼俱礙，如狗野幹馬豹豺狼貓狸等眼。有俱非礙，謂除前相。此等名為境界有對。所緣有對，謂心心所於自所緣。境界、所緣復有何別？若於彼法此有功能，即說彼為此法境界。心心所法執彼而起，彼於心等名為所緣。云何眼等於自境界所緣轉時說名有礙？越彼於餘此不轉故。或復礙者是和會義，謂眼等法於自境界及自所緣和會轉故。應知此中唯就障礙有對而說，故但言十有色有對，更相障故。由此義準說餘無對。若法境界有對，亦障礙有對耶？應作四句。謂七心界法界一分諸相應法是第一句。色等五境是第二句。眼等五根是第三句。法界一分非相應法是第四句。若法境界有對，亦所緣有對耶？應順後句，謂若所緣有對，定是境界有對。有雖境界有對而非所緣有對，謂眼等五根。此中大德鳩摩邏多作如是說：

The treatise says: Among the eighteen elements, the form element is visible, because one can point out "this" and "that" as different. By this meaning, the others are said to be invisible. Thus visible and invisible have been explained. Only the ten elements included in the form aggregate are resistant; resistance means obstruction. This is of three kinds: resistance by obstruction, by object-field, and by object-support. Resistance by obstruction refers to the ten material elements. Where one thing is blocked by another and cannot arise there, as a hand is blocked by a hand, or a stone by a stone, or two things block each other. Resistance by object-field refers to the twelve elements and a portion of the dharma element, namely all the dharmas that have objects, with respect to forms and other objects; hence the Prajnapti-sastra speaks thus: There are eyes that are impeded in water but not on land, such as the eyes of fish. There are eyes impeded on land but not in water, speaking of most cases, such as the eyes of humans. There are eyes impeded in both, such as the eyes of pisacas, simsumaras, fishermen, and frogs. There are eyes impeded in neither, namely those other than the above. There are eyes impeded at night but not by day, such as the eyes of bats and owls. There are eyes impeded by day but not at night, speaking of most cases, such as the eyes of humans. There are eyes impeded in both, such as the eyes of dogs, jackals, horses, leopards, wolves, and cats. There are eyes impeded in neither, namely those other than the above. These are called resistance by object-field. Resistance by object-support refers to mind and mental factors with respect to their own supports. What is the difference between object-field and object-support? When a dharma has the capacity with respect to another dharma, that other is called the object-field of this dharma. Mind and mental factors that grasp that other and arise are so called, and that other is called the object-support of the mind and the rest. Why are the eye and the rest called "impeded" when they operate on their own object-fields and object-supports? Because they do not operate beyond these on anything else. Or else, being impeded is the meaning of conjunction, because the eye and the rest operate in conjunction with their own object-fields and their own object-supports. It should be understood that here only resistance by obstruction is meant, and so it is said that only the ten material elements are resistant, because they mutually obstruct one another. By this meaning, the others are said to be non-resistant. If a dharma is resistant by object-field, is it also resistant by obstruction? There should be four alternatives. The first: the seven mind elements and the dharma-element-portion of all associated dharmas. The second: the five objects, form and the rest. The third: the five sense faculties, the eye and the rest. The fourth: the portion of the dharma element that is not associated. If a dharma is resistant by object-field, is it also resistant by object-support? One should follow the latter: if resistant by object-support, it is necessarily resistant by object-field. There are those that are resistant by object-field but not by object-support, namely the five sense faculties, the eye and the rest. Here the great master Kumaralata spoke thus:

是處心欲生，他礙令不起，

Where a mind desires to arise, another obstructs it so it does not arise,

應知是有對，無對此相違。

This should be known as resistant; non-resistant is the opposite of this.

此是所許。如是已說有對無對。於此所說十有對中，除色及聲餘八無記，謂五色根、香、味、觸境，不可記為善不善性，故名無記。有說：不能記異熟果故名無記。若爾，無漏應唯無記。其餘十界通善等三，謂七心界與無貪等相應名善，貪等相應名為不善，餘名無記。法界若是無貪等性相應等起擇滅名善，若貪等性相應等起名為不善，餘名無記。色界聲界若善不善心力等起身語表攝，是善不善，餘是無記。已說善等。十八界中幾欲界繫、幾色界繫、幾無色界繫？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) This is the accepted view. Thus resistant and non-resistant have been explained. Among the ten resistant elements spoken of here, apart from form and sound, the other eight are neutral, namely the five material sense faculties and the objects of smell, taste, and touch; they cannot be designated as wholesome or unwholesome in nature, and so they are called neutral. Some say: they are called neutral because they cannot be designated as bearing a ripened result. If so, the unconditioned should be only neutral. The other ten elements are of all three kinds, wholesome and the rest: the seven mind elements are called wholesome when associated with non-greed and so on, unwholesome when associated with greed and so on, and the rest are neutral. The dharma element is called wholesome if it is of the nature of non-greed and so on, or associated with it, or arisen from it, or is cessation through discrimination; it is called unwholesome if it is of the nature of greed and so on, or associated with or arisen from it; the rest are neutral. The form element and sound element are wholesome or unwholesome if they are included in bodily and verbal expression arisen from the force of a wholesome or unwholesome mind; the rest are neutral. Wholesome and the rest have been explained. Among the eighteen elements, how many belong to the desire realm, how many to the form realm, and how many to the formless realm? The verse says:

欲界繫十八，色界繫十四，

Eighteen belong to the desire realm; fourteen belong to the form realm,

除香味二識，無色繫後三。

Excluding smell, taste, and the two consciousnesses; the formless realm holds the last three.

論曰：繫謂繫屬，即被縛義。欲界所繫具足十八，色界所繫唯十四種，除香味境及鼻舌識。除香味者，段食性故，離段食慾方得生彼。除鼻舌識，無所緣故。若爾，觸界於彼應無，如香味境段食性故，彼所有觸非段食性。若爾，香味類亦應然，香味離食無別受用，觸有別用持根衣等，彼離食慾香味無用，有根衣等故觸非無。有餘師說：住此依彼靜慮等至見色聞聲，輕安俱起有殊勝觸攝益於身，是故此三生彼靜慮猶相隨逐，香味不爾，故在彼無。若爾，鼻舌彼應非有，如香味境彼無用故。不爾，二根於彼有用，謂起言說及莊嚴身。若為嚴身及起說用，但須依處，何用二根？如無男根亦無依處，二根無者依處亦無。於彼可無男根依處，彼無用故。鼻舌依處彼有用故，離根應有。有雖無用而有根生，如處胞胎定當死者。有雖無用而非無因，彼從何因得有根起？於根有愛發殊勝業。若離境愛，於根定然，彼離境貪應無鼻舌。或應許彼男根亦生，若謂不生由醜陋者，陰藏隱密何容醜陋？又諸根生非由有用，若有因力無用亦生。男根於彼雖為醜陋，設許有因於彼應起，男根非有，鼻舌應無。若爾，便違契經所說：彼無支缺，不減諸根。隨彼諸根應可有者，說為不減。何所相違？若不許然男根應有。如是說者，鼻舌二根於彼非無，但無香味，以六根愛依內身生，非依境界而得現起。其男根愛依婬觸生，婬觸彼無，男根非有，故於色界十八界中，唯十四種理得成立。無色界繫唯有後三，所謂意、法及意識界，要離色慾於彼得生，故無色中無十色界。依緣無故五識亦無，故唯後三無色界繫。已說界繫，十八界中幾有漏、幾無漏？頌曰：

The treatise says: To "belong" means to be bound to, the meaning of being fettered. All eighteen belong to the desire realm; only fourteen belong to the form realm, excluding the objects of smell and taste and the nose and tongue consciousnesses. Smell and taste are excluded because they are of the nature of coarse food, and one is born there only after being free from desire for coarse food. The nose and tongue consciousnesses are excluded because they have no object there. If so, the touch element should also be absent there, since, like smell and taste, it is of the nature of coarse food. No: the touch that exists there is not of the nature of coarse food. If so, smell and taste should be the same kind, since apart from food they have no separate use; but touch has a separate use, supporting the faculties, clothing, and so on; for those free from desire for food, smell and taste have no use, but because they have faculties and clothing, touch is not absent. Other masters say: Those who dwell here and rely on that, in meditative absorption such as the dhyanas, see forms and hear sounds, and when tranquility arises together there is a special touch that benefits the body; so these three are born there while the dhyana still accompanies them, but smell and taste are not so, and hence are absent there. If so, the nose and tongue should also not exist there, as smell and taste do not, since they have no use there. Not so: the two faculties have a use there, namely to produce speech and to adorn the body. If it is for adorning the body and producing speech, only the bases are needed; why need the two faculties? As, lacking the male faculty, one also lacks its base, so with these two faculties lacking, their bases would be lacking too. It is acceptable there to lack the base of the male faculty, since it is useless there. But the bases of nose and tongue have a use there, so even apart from the faculties they should exist. Though something may be useless, a faculty may still arise, as with a fetus that is certain to die. If something is useless yet not without cause, from what cause does the faculty arise there? From craving for the faculty, which sets forth a special karma. If craving were for objects only, then those free from desire for objects would have no nose or tongue. Or else one should allow that the male faculty is also born there; if you say it is not born because it is ugly, how could a hidden private part be ugly? Moreover, faculties do not arise because they are useful; if there is the force of a cause, they arise even when useless. Though the male faculty is ugly there, if you grant a cause for it there, it should arise; if the male faculty is not there, the nose and tongue should also not be there. If so, this would contradict the sutra, which says: "They have no missing limbs and no diminished faculties." If whatever faculties could exist are said not to be diminished, what contradiction is there? If you do not accept this, the male faculty should exist. To say so: the two faculties, nose and tongue, are not absent there; only smell and taste are, because craving for the six faculties arises relying on the inner body and not on the object-fields, while craving for the male faculty arises relying on sexual contact, and since sexual contact is absent there, the male faculty does not exist. Therefore, among the eighteen elements in the form realm, only fourteen can be established. The formless realm holds only the last three, namely the mind element, the dharma element, and the mind-consciousness element, because one is born there only after being free from desire for form; hence the ten material elements are absent in the formless realm, and since the supports and conditions are absent, the five consciousnesses are also absent, so only the last three belong to the formless realm. Realm-belonging has been explained. Among the eighteen elements, how many are defiled (with outflows) and how many undefiled? The verse says:

意法意識通，所餘唯有漏。

Mind, dharma, and mind-consciousness are of both kinds; the others are only defiled.

論曰：意及意識道諦攝者，名為無漏，餘名有漏。法界若是道諦無為，名為無漏，餘名有漏。餘十五界唯名有漏。如是已說有漏無漏。十八界中幾有尋有伺、幾無尋唯伺、幾無尋無伺？頌曰：

The treatise says: The mind element and mind-consciousness, when included in the truth of the path, are called undefiled; the others are called defiled. The dharma element, if it is the truth of the path or the unconditioned, is called undefiled; the others are called defiled. The other fifteen elements are only defiled. Thus defiled and undefiled have been explained. Among the eighteen elements, how many have initial thought (vitarka) and sustained thought (vicara), how many have no initial thought but only sustained thought, and how many have neither? The verse says:

五識唯尋伺，後三三餘無。

The five consciousnesses have only both; the last three have all three; the others have neither.

論曰：眼等五識有尋有伺，由與尋伺恆共相應，以行相麁外門轉故、顯義決定，故說唯言。後三謂是意、法、意識，根、境、識中各居後故。此後三界皆通三品，意界、意識界及相應法界，除尋與伺。若在欲界初靜慮中有尋有伺，靜慮中間無尋唯伺，第二靜慮以上諸地乃至有頂無尋無伺。法界所攝非相應法，靜慮中間伺亦如是。尋一切時無尋唯伺，無第二尋故、但伺相應故。伺在欲界初靜慮中三品不收，應名何等？此應名曰無伺唯尋，無第二伺故、但尋相應故。由此故言有尋伺地有四品法：一有尋有伺，謂除尋伺餘相應法。二無尋唯伺，謂即是尋。三無尋無伺，謂即一切非相應法。四無伺唯尋，謂即是伺。餘十色界尋伺俱無，常與尋伺不相應故。若五識身有尋有伺，如何得說無分別耶？頌曰：

The treatise says: The five consciousnesses, eye and the rest, have both initial and sustained thought, because they are always associated with both, because their mode of operation is coarse and turns outward, and the word "only" is used to make the meaning definite. The last three are the mind, dharma, and mind-consciousness, each coming last among the faculties, objects, and consciousnesses. These last three elements all extend to the three categories: the mind element, the mind-consciousness element, and the associated dharma element, excluding initial and sustained thought. In the desire realm and the first dhyana they have both; in the intermediate dhyana they have only sustained thought without initial thought; in the second dhyana and the higher grounds up to the peak of existence they have neither. The unassociated dharmas included in the dharma element are the same as the intermediate dhyana for sustained thought. Initial thought is at all times without initial thought but with sustained thought, because there is no second initial thought and because it is associated only with sustained thought. Sustained thought, in the desire realm and the first dhyana, is not included in the three categories; what should it be called? It should be called without sustained thought but with initial thought, because there is no second sustained thought and because it is associated only with initial thought. For this reason it is said that the grounds with initial and sustained thought have four classes of dharmas: first, with both initial and sustained thought, namely the other associated dharmas apart from initial and sustained thought; second, no initial thought but only sustained thought, namely initial thought itself; third, neither initial nor sustained thought, namely all unassociated dharmas; fourth, no sustained thought but only initial thought, namely sustained thought itself. The other ten material elements have neither initial nor sustained thought, because they are never associated with them. If the five consciousness-groups have initial and sustained thought, how can they be said to be without discrimination? The verse says:

說五無分別，由計度隨念，

The five are said to be without discrimination, by reason of conceptual and recollective discrimination,

以意地散慧，意諸念為體。

Which are, respectively, distracted wisdom of the mental ground and the various recollections of the mind.

論曰：傳說，分別略有三種：一自性分別、二計度分別、三隨念分別。由五識身雖有自性而無餘二，說無分別，如一足馬名為無足。自性分別體唯是尋，後心所中自當辯釋。餘二分別如其次第。意地散慧諸念為體，散謂非定。意識相應散慧，名為計度分別。若定若散意識相應諸念，名為隨念分別。如是已說有尋伺等。十八界中幾有所緣、幾無所緣？幾有執受、幾無執受？頌曰：

The treatise says: It is said that discrimination is briefly of three kinds: first, discrimination of intrinsic nature; second, conceptual discrimination; third, recollective discrimination. Although the five consciousness-groups have intrinsic nature, they lack the other two, and so are said to be without discrimination, as a one-footed horse is called footless. The essence of discrimination of intrinsic nature is only initial thought, which will naturally be explained below among the mental factors. The other two discriminations follow this order. Distracted wisdom of the mental ground, and the various recollections, are their essence; "distracted" means not in concentration. The distracted wisdom associated with mind-consciousness is called conceptual discrimination. The various recollections associated with mind-consciousness, whether concentrated or distracted, are called recollective discrimination. Thus initial thought and sustained thought and so on have been explained. Among the eighteen elements, how many have an object-support and how many have none? How many are appropriated and how many unappropriated? The verse says:

七心法界半，有所緣餘無，

The seven mind elements and half the dharma element have an object-support; the others have none.

前八界及聲，無執受餘二。

The first eight elements and sound are unappropriated; the others are of the two kinds.

論曰：六識意界及法界攝諸心所法，名有所緣，能取境故。餘十色界及法界攝不相應法，名無所緣，義準成故。如是已說有所緣等。十八界中九無執受，前七心界及法界全，此八及聲皆無執受。所餘九界各通二門，謂有執受、無執受故。眼等五根住現在世名有執受，過去未來名無執受。色香味觸住現在世不離五根名有執受，若住現在非不離根過去未來名無執受。如在身內除與根合，髮毛爪齒大小便利洟唾血等，及在身外地水等中色香味觸，雖在現世而無執受。有執受者，此言何義？心心所法共所執持攝為依處名有執受，損益展轉更相隨故。即諸世間說有覺觸，眾緣所觸覺樂等故。與此相違名無執受。如是已說有執受等。十八界中幾大種性、幾所造性？幾可積集、幾非積集？頌曰：

The treatise says: The six consciousnesses, the mind element, and the mental factors included in the dharma element are called having an object-support, because they apprehend objects. The other ten material elements and the unassociated dharmas included in the dharma element are called without an object-support, established by implication. Thus having an object-support and so on have been explained. Among the eighteen elements, nine are unappropriated: the first seven mind elements and the whole of the dharma element, these eight, together with sound, are all unappropriated. The other nine elements extend to both categories, namely appropriated and unappropriated. The five sense faculties, eye and the rest, when existing in the present, are called appropriated, and in the past and future are called unappropriated. Color, smell, taste, and touch, when existing in the present and not separated from the five faculties, are called appropriated; when existing in the present but separated from the faculties, or in the past or future, they are called unappropriated. For example, within the body, apart from what joins with the faculties, hair, nails, teeth, urine, feces, mucus, spittle, blood and so on, and outside the body, the color, smell, taste, and touch in earth, water, and so on, though in the present are unappropriated. What does "appropriated" mean? It means being jointly held by mind and mental factors as a basis, so that harm and benefit follow one another in turn. It is as the world says that there is sensation and touch, because the touch of various conditions causes pleasure and so on to be felt. What is contrary to this is called unappropriated. Thus appropriated and so on have been explained. Among the eighteen elements, how many are of the nature of the great elements and how many are derived? How many can be accumulated and how many cannot? The verse says:

觸界中有二，餘九色所造，

The touch element has both; the other nine material elements are derived,

法一分亦然，十色可積集。

A portion of the dharma element is likewise; the ten material elements can be accumulated.

論曰：觸界通二，謂大種及所造。大種有四，謂堅性等。所造有七，謂滑性等，依大種生故名所造。餘九色界唯是所造，謂五色根、色等四境。法界一分無表業色亦唯所造。餘七心界法界一分，除無表色俱非二種。尊者覺天作如是說：十種色處唯大種性。彼說不然，契經唯說堅等四相為大種故。此四大種唯觸攝故，非堅濕等眼等所取，非色聲等身根所覺，是故彼說理定不然。又契經說：苾芻當知，眼謂內處四大種所造淨色，有色無見有對，乃至身處廣說亦爾。苾芻當知，色謂外處四大種所造，有色有見有對。聲謂外處四大種所造，有色無見有對。香味二處，廣說亦爾。觸謂外處，是四大種及四大種所造，有色無見有對。如是經中唯說觸處攝四大種，分明顯示餘有色處皆非大種。若爾，何故契經中言謂於眼肉團中若內各別堅性堅類，乃至廣說。彼說不離眼根肉團有堅性等，無相違過。《入胎經》中唯說六界為士夫者，為顯能成士夫本事，非唯爾所，彼經復說六觸處故。又諸心所應非有故，亦不應執心所即心，以契經言想受等心所法依止心故。又亦說有貪心等故。由此如前所說諸界大種所造，差別義成。如是已說大種性等。十八界中，五根、五境十有色界是可積集，極微聚故。義準餘八非可積集，非極微故。如是已說可積集等。十八界中，幾能斫、幾所斫？幾能燒、幾所燒？幾能稱、幾所稱？頌曰：

The treatise says: The touch element extends to both, namely the great elements and the derived. The great elements are four, namely solidity and so on. The derived are seven, namely smoothness and so on, called derived because they arise depending on the great elements. The other nine material elements are only derived, namely the five material sense faculties and the four objects, color and so on. The unmanifest form included in the dharma element is also only derived. The other seven mind elements and the portion of the dharma element, apart from unmanifest form, are of neither kind. The Venerable Buddhadeva spoke thus: The ten kinds of material bases are only of the nature of the great elements. This is not so, say others, since the sutra only says that the four characteristics, solidity and so on, are the great elements. These four great elements are included only in touch, so they are not what the eye and the rest take as solidity, wetness and the rest, nor what the body faculty perceives as color, sound and the rest; so their theory is certainly not correct by reason. Moreover the sutra says: "Monks, you should know that the eye is the internal base, the clear matter derived from the four great elements, with form, invisible, and resistant," and so on up to the body base likewise. "Monks, you should know that form is the external base, derived from the four great elements, with form, visible, and resistant. Sound is the external base, derived from the four great elements, with form, invisible, and resistant. The bases of smell and taste are likewise, as explained at length. Touch is the external base, being the four great elements and what is derived from the four great elements, with form, invisible, and resistant." Thus the sutra says only that the touch base includes the great elements, which clearly shows that the other material bases are not great elements. If so, why does the sutra say: "Within the flesh-ball of the eye, there is internal solidity, a class of the solid," and so on at length? That speaks of solidity and so on in the flesh-ball not separate from the eye faculty, and there is no fault of contradiction. The Garbhavakranti sutra says only six elements for a person, to show what can constitute a person, not that there are only these; and that sutra also speaks of the six bases of contact. Moreover, mental factors would not exist; nor should one hold that mental factors are the mind itself, because the sutra says that feeling, perception and so on are mental factors that rely on the mind. It also speaks of a mind with greed and so on. Therefore, as stated above, the difference between the great elements and the derived among the elements is established. Thus the nature of the great elements and so on has been explained. Among the eighteen elements, the ten material elements, the five faculties and five objects, can be accumulated, because they are aggregates of atoms. By implication, the other eight cannot be accumulated, because they are not atoms. Thus what can be accumulated and so on has been explained. Among the eighteen elements, how many can cut and how many be cut? How many can burn and how many be burned? How many can weigh and how many be weighed? The verse says:

謂唯外四界，能斫及所斫，

Only the four external elements can cut and be cut,

亦所燒能稱，能燒所稱諍。

And can be burned and can weigh; as for what can burn and be weighed, there is dispute.

論曰：色香味觸成斧薪等，此即名為能斫所斫。何法名斫？薪等色聚相逼續生，斧等分隔令各續起，此法名斫。身等色根不名所斫，非可全斷令成二故。非身根等可成二分，支分離身則無根故。又身根等亦非能斫，以淨妙故如珠寶光。如能斫所斫體唯外四界，所燒能稱其體亦爾，謂唯外四界名所燒能稱。身等色根亦非二事，以淨妙故如珠寶光。聲界總非，不相續故。能燒所稱有異諍論，謂或有說：能燒所稱體亦如前，唯外四界。或復有說：唯有火界可名能燒，所稱唯重。如是已說能所斫等。十八界中幾異熟生、幾所長養、幾等流性、幾有實事、幾一剎那？頌曰：

The treatise says: Color, smell, taste, and touch constitute the axe, the firewood and so on, and these are called what can cut and be cut. What dharma is called cutting? When the form-aggregates of firewood and so on press upon one another and continue arising, the axe and so on separate them so that each continues to arise separately; this dharma is called cutting. The material faculties such as the body are not called what can be cut, because they cannot be wholly severed to become two. The body faculty and so on cannot become two parts, since a limb separated from the body has no faculty. Nor can the body faculty and so on cut, being subtle and clear like the light of a jewel. As what can cut and be cut have essence only in the four external elements, so too what can be burned and what can weigh have their essence only in the four external elements, which are called what can be burned and what can weigh. The material faculties such as the body are also not these two things, being subtle and clear like the light of a jewel. The sound element is in no case so, because it does not continue. As to what can burn and what can be weighed, there are differing disputes: some say that what can burn and what can be weighed also have the same essence as before, only the four external elements; others say that only the fire element can be called what can burn, and what can be weighed is only heaviness. Thus what can cut and be cut and so on have been explained. Among the eighteen elements, how many are ripened-born, how many nourished, how many outflowing, how many have a real entity, how many are of a single moment? The verse says:

內五有熟養，聲無異熟生，

The inner five are ripened and nourished; sound is not ripened-born,

八無礙等流，亦異熟生性，

The eight non-resistant ones are outflowing and also of ripened-born nature,

餘三實唯法，剎那唯後三。

The other three have real entity only in the dharma; the single moment applies only to the last three.

論曰：內五即是眼等五界。有異熟生及所長養無等流者，離異熟生及所長養，無別性故。異熟因所生名異熟生，如牛所駕車名曰牛車，略去中言故作是說。或所造業至得果時變而能熟，故名異熟。果從彼生，名異熟生。彼所得果與因別類，而是所熟，故名異熟。或於因上假立果名，如於果上假立因名。如契經說：今六觸處，應知即是昔所造業。飲食資助眠睡等持勝緣所益，名所長養。有說：梵行亦能長養。此唯無損，非別有益。長養相續常能護持異熟相續，猶如外郭防援內城。聲有等流及所長養無異熟生。所以者何？隨欲轉故。若爾，不應《施設論》說善修遠離麁惡語故，感得大士梵音聲相。有說：聲屬第三傳故，雖由彼生而非異熟。謂從彼業生諸大種，從諸大種緣擊發聲。有說：聲屬第五傳故，雖由彼生而非異熟。謂彼業生異熟大種，從此傳生長養大種，此復傳生等流大種此乃生聲。若爾，身受從業所生大種生故，應非異熟。若受如聲，便違正理。八無礙者，七心法界此有等流異熟生性。同類遍行因所生者是等流性，若異熟因所引生者名異熟生，諸無礙法無積集故非所長養。餘謂餘四：色、香、味、觸，皆通三種，有異熟生、有所長養、有等流性。實唯法者，實謂無為，以堅實故。此法界攝故，唯法界獨名有實。意、法、意識名為後三，於六三中最後說故。唯此三界有一剎那，謂初無漏苦法忍品，非等流故名一剎那。此說究竟非等流者，餘有為法無非等流。苦法忍相應心名意界、意識界，餘俱起法名為法界。如是已說異熟生等。今應思擇，若有眼界先不成就今得成就亦眼識耶？若眼識界先不成就今得成就亦眼界耶？如是等問，今應略答。頌曰：

The treatise says: The inner five are the five elements, eye and the rest. They are ripened-born and nourished but not outflowing, because apart from the ripened-born and the nourished they have no other nature. What is born from a ripened cause is called ripened-born, like a cart drawn by oxen is called an ox-cart; the sentence is spoken thus because the intermediate words are omitted. Or else, when karma that was done reaches the time of bearing fruit it changes and is able to ripen, so it is called ripening; the fruit born from it is called ripened-born. The fruit obtained from it is of a different class from the cause yet is what has been ripened, and so is called ripening. Or the name of fruit is figuratively set upon the cause, as the name of cause is set upon the fruit. As the sutra says: "The six contact bases now present should be known as the very karma done in the past." That which is aided by food and drink, sleep, and the conditions of concentration is called nourished. Some say that pure conduct can also nourish; this only does not harm, and is not a separate benefit. Nourishing continues and constantly protects the ripened continuity, like an outer wall defending and supporting an inner city. Sound has outflowing and nourished but is not ripened-born. Why? Because it follows desire. If so, the Prajnapti-sastra would not say that by well cultivating the avoidance of coarse and harsh speech one obtains the voice mark of a great being, the Brahma voice. Some say: sound belongs to the third transmission, so although it is born from that, it is not ripened; that is, from the great elements born of that karma, from the great elements, by the condition of striking, sound is produced. Others say: sound belongs to the fifth transmission, so although it is born from that, it is not ripened; that is, the ripened great elements born of that karma transmit to produce nourished great elements, which in turn transmit to produce outflowing great elements, and only then sound is produced. If so, bodily sensation, being born from great elements born of karma, should not be ripened. If sensation is like sound, this contradicts correct reasoning. The eight non-resistant ones, the seven mind elements and the dharma element, have the nature of outflowing and ripened-born. What arises from a cause of the same class or a pervasive cause is of the outflowing nature; what is drawn forth by a ripening cause is called ripened-born. Non-resistant dharmas are not accumulated, so they are not nourished. The "other" are the other four: color, smell, taste, and touch, which extend to all three: they can be ripened-born, nourished, and outflowing. Having a real entity applies only to dharmas; "real" means the unconditioned, because it is solid and real. Since this belongs to the dharma element, only the dharma element alone is called having reality. The mind, dharma, and mind-consciousness are called the last three, because among the six sets of three they are mentioned last. Only these three elements have a single moment, namely the first undefiled stage, the acceptance of the knowledge of suffering, because it is not outflowing, hence it is called a single moment. Here "ultimately not outflowing" is meant; other conditioned dharmas are all outflowing. The mind associated with the acceptance of the knowledge of suffering is called the mind element and the mind-consciousness element; the other co-arisen dharmas are called the dharma element. Thus ripened-born and so on have been explained. Now we should examine: if one has the eye element not previously possessed and now comes to possess it, does one also possess eye-consciousness? And if one now comes to possess the eye-consciousness element not previously possessed, does one also possess the eye element? Questions like these should now be briefly answered. The verse says:

眼與眼識界，獨俱得非等。

The eye and eye-consciousness elements: obtained singly, obtained together, or neither.

論曰：獨得者，謂或有眼界先不成就今得成就非眼識，謂生欲界漸得眼根，及無色沒生二三四靜慮地時。或有眼識先不成就今得成就非眼界，謂生二三四靜慮地眼識現起，及從彼沒生下地時。俱得者，謂或有二界先不成就今得成就，謂無色沒生於欲界及梵世時。非者俱非，謂除前相。等謂若有成就眼界亦眼識耶？應作四句。第一句者，謂生二三四靜慮地眼識不起。第二句者，謂生欲界未得眼根及得已失。第三句者，謂生欲界得眼不失，及生梵世若生二三四靜慮地正見色時。第四句者，謂除前相。如是眼界與色界。眼識與色界得成就等如理應思，為攝如是所未說義，是故頌中總復言等。如是已說得成就等。十八界中幾內、幾外？頌曰：

The treatise says: Obtained singly: there are cases where one comes to possess the eye element not previously possessed but not eye-consciousness, namely when one is born in the desire realm and gradually gains the eye faculty, and when one dies from the formless realm and is born in the second, third, or fourth dhyana ground. There are cases where one comes to possess eye-consciousness not previously possessed but not the eye element, namely when eye-consciousness arises for one born in the second, third, or fourth dhyana ground, and when one dies from there and is born in a lower ground. Obtained together: there are cases where one comes to possess both elements not previously possessed, namely when one dies from the formless realm and is born in the desire realm or the Brahma world. Neither: the rest, other than the above. As for "and so on": if one possesses the eye element, does one also possess eye-consciousness? There should be four alternatives. The first: one born in the second, third, or fourth dhyana ground whose eye-consciousness does not arise. The second: one born in the desire realm who has not yet gained the eye faculty, or who has gained it and lost it. The third: one born in the desire realm who has gained the eye and not lost it, and one born in the Brahma world, or one born in the second, third, or fourth dhyana ground who is actually seeing forms. The fourth: the rest, other than the above. Likewise the eye element and the form element, and eye-consciousness and the form element, in their obtaining and possession and so on, should be reasoned out; in order to include the meanings not spoken of above, the verse adds "and so on." Thus obtaining and possession have been explained. Among the eighteen elements, how many are internal and how many external? The verse says:

內十二眼等，色等六為外。

Twelve, eye and the rest, are internal; the six, form and the rest, are external.

論曰：六根、六識十二名內，外謂所餘色等六境。我依名內，外謂此餘。我體既無，內外何有？我執依止故，假說心為我。故契經說：

The treatise says: The six faculties and six consciousnesses, twelve in all, are called internal; external means the other six objects, form and the rest. What depends on the self is called internal, and external is what is other than this. Since the self has no substance, how can there be internal and external? Because of the support of self-grasping, the mind is figuratively spoken of as the self. Hence the sutra says:

由善調伏我，智者得生天。

By well taming the self, the wise are born in heaven.

世尊餘處說調伏心，如契經言：

(The treatise continues:) Elsewhere the World-Honored One speaks of taming the mind, as the sutra says:

應善調伏心，心調能引樂。

One should well tame the mind; a tamed mind brings happiness.

故但於心假說為我。眼等為此所依親近，故說名內。色等為此所緣踈遠，故說名外。若爾，六識應不名內，未至意位非心依故。至意位時不失六識界，未至意位亦非越意相。若異此者，意界唯應在過去世，六識唯在現在未來，便違自宗許十八界皆通三世。又若未來現在六識無意界相，過去意界亦應不立，相於三世無改易故。已說內外。十八界中幾是同分、幾彼同分？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) So it is only the mind that is figuratively spoken of as the self. The eye and the rest are close supports of this, and so are called internal. Form and the rest are objects of this and remote from it, and so are called external. If so, the six consciousnesses should not be called internal, since before reaching the mental position they are not the supports of the mind. Once they reach the mental position, the six consciousness elements are not lost, and before reaching the mental position they also do not go beyond the characteristic of mind. If it were otherwise, the mind element would be only in the past, and the six consciousnesses only in the present and future, which would contradict our own school's acceptance that all eighteen elements extend through the three times. Moreover, if future and present six consciousnesses lacked the characteristic of the mind element, then the past mind element should also not be established, since the characteristic does not change across the three times. Internal and external have been explained. Among the eighteen elements, how many belong to the same class (sabhaga) and how many to the class of that? The verse says:

法同分餘二，作不作自業。

The dharma element is of the same class; the other two are, with 'acting' and 'not acting' acting karma.

論曰：法同分者，謂一法界唯是同分。若境與識定為所緣，識於其中已生生法，此所緣境說名同分。無一法界不於其中已正當生無邊意識，由諸聖者決定生心，觀一切法皆為無我。彼除自體及俱有法，餘一切法皆為所緣。如是所除亦第二念心所緣境，此二念心緣一切境無不周遍，是故法界恆名同分。餘二者，謂餘十七界皆有同分及彼同分。何名同分、彼同分耶？謂作自業、不作自業。若作自業名為同分，不作自業名彼同分。此中眼界於有見色已正當見名同分眼，如是廣說，乃至意界各於自境應說自用。迦濕彌羅國毘婆沙師說：彼同分眼但有四種，謂不見色已正當滅及不生法。西方諸師說有五種：謂不生法復開為二，一有識屬、二無識屬，乃至身界應知亦然。意彼同分唯不生法。色界為眼已正當見名同分色，彼同分色亦有四種，謂非眼見已正當滅及不生法，廣說乃至觸界亦爾。各對自根應說自用，應知同分及彼同分。眼若於一是同分，於餘一切亦同分。彼同分亦如是，廣說乃至意界亦爾。色即不然，於見者是同分，於不見者是彼同分。所以者何？色有是事，謂一所見亦多所見，如觀月舞相撲等色。眼無是事，謂一眼根二能見色，眼不共故，依一相續建立同分及彼同分。色是共故，依多相續建立同分及彼同分。如說色界，聲香味觸應知亦爾。聲可如色。香味觸三至根方取，是不共故，一取非餘。理應如眼等，不應如色說。雖有是理而容有共。所以者何？香等三界於一及餘，皆有可生鼻等識義。眼等不然，故如色說。眼等六識同分彼同分生不生法故，如意界說。云何同分、彼同分義？根境識三更相交涉故名為分，或復分者是已作用，或復分者是所生觸，同有此分故名同分。與此相違名彼同分，由非同分與彼同分種類分同，名彼同分。已說同分及彼同分。十八界中幾見所斷、幾修所斷、幾非所斷？頌曰：

The treatise says: As for dharmas of the same class (sabhaga), the dharma-realm is simply of the same class. When an object and consciousness are fixed as the apprehended and the apprehending, the dharmas in which consciousness has arisen, is arising, or will arise, with that object as its support, are called of the same class. There is no dharma-realm in which limitless mental consciousnesses have not arisen, are not arising, and will not arise, because the noble ones necessarily give rise to minds that contemplate all dharmas as without self. All dharmas other than the thing's own nature and its co-existent dharmas are objects of apprehension. Likewise, what has been excluded is also the object of the second moment of mind, and these two moments of mind apprehend all objects without exception; therefore the dharma-realm is always called of the same class. As for the other two, that is, the other seventeen realms all have the same class and the counterpart class. What are they called, the same class and the counterpart class? They are the function that is performed and the function that is not performed. A realm whose function is performed is called the same class; one whose function is not performed is called the counterpart class. Here, the eye-realm that has seen, is seeing, or will see visible forms is called the eye of the same class. The explanation continues in this way up to the mind-realm, each to be described according to its own function with its own object. The Vaibhasika masters of Kashmir say: the eye of the counterpart class is of only four kinds, namely: the eye that has not seen forms, is not seeing them, and will not see them; that has ceased; and that is of the unarisen dharmas. The masters of the Western regions say there are five kinds: the unarisen dharmas are further divided into two, one belonging to a conscious being and one not belonging to a conscious being; and the same should be understood up to the body-realm. The counterpart class of the mind is only the unarisen dharmas. The form-realm that the eye has seen, is seeing, or will see is called form of the same class; form of the counterpart class also has four kinds, namely: form that the eye has not seen, is not seeing, and will not see; that has ceased; and that is of the unarisen dharmas; and the same holds up to the tangible-realm. For each, speak of its own function in relation to its own faculty, and understand the same class and the counterpart class accordingly. If the eye is of the same class in regard to one, it is of the same class in regard to all the others. The counterpart class is likewise, and so on up to the mind-realm. Form is not so: in regard to those who see it, it is of the same class; in regard to those who do not see it, it is of the counterpart class. Why? Because with form it happens that one form is seen by many, as in watching the moon, dances, wrestling, and the like. This does not happen with the eye, namely that one eye faculty is seen by two who see forms; because the eye is not common, the same class and the counterpart class are established in dependence on a single continuum. Because form is common, the same class and the counterpart class are established in dependence on many continua. As was said of the form-realm, sound, smell, taste, and touch should be understood likewise. Sound may be like form. Smell, taste, and touch are apprehended by the faculty only when they arrive, and are not common; one apprehends them and not others. By reason they should be like the eye and so on, and should not be spoken of like form. Although there is this reasoning, they may nonetheless be common. Why? Because the three realms of smell and so on have the meaning of being able to produce nose-consciousness and so on in one person and in others. The eye and so on are not so, and therefore are spoken of like form. The six consciousnesses, the eye-consciousness and the rest, are spoken of as the mind-realm is, since they are the same class, the counterpart class, and the unarisen dharmas. What is the meaning of the same class and the counterpart class? Because the faculty, object, and consciousness interact with one another, it is called a share (bhaga); or what is shared is the function already performed, or the contact that arises; since they have this share in common, it is called the same class. What is contrary to this is called the counterpart class; because what is not of the same class belongs to a kind that shares with the counterpart class, it is called the counterpart class. The same class and the counterpart class have been explained. Among the eighteen realms, how many are eliminated by seeing, how many by cultivation, and how many are not eliminated? The verse says:

十五唯修斷，後三界通三，

Fifteen are eliminated only by cultivation; the last three realms are of all three kinds,

不染非六生，色定非見斷。

The undefiled, the non-sixth-born, and form are definitely not eliminated by seeing.

論曰：十五界者，謂十色界及五識界。唯修斷者，此十五界唯修所斷。後三界者，意界、法界及意識界。通三者，謂此後三界各通三種。八十八隨眠及彼俱有法並隨行得，皆見所斷，諸餘有漏皆修所斷，一切無漏皆非所斷。豈不更有見所斷法，謂異生性及招惡趣身語業等，此與聖道極相違故。雖爾，此法非見所斷，略說彼相，謂不染法非六生色，定非見斷。其異生性是不染汙，無記性攝，已離欲者斷善根者猶成就故。此異生性若見所斷，苦法忍位應是異生。六謂意處，異此而生名非六生，是從眼等五根生義，即五識等。色謂一切身語業等。前及此色，定非見斷。所以者何？非迷諦理親發起故。如是已說見所斷等。十八界中幾是見、幾非見？頌曰：

The treatise says: The fifteen realms are the ten form realms and the five consciousness realms. Eliminated only by cultivation means these fifteen realms are eliminated only by cultivation. The last three realms are the mind-realm, the dharma-realm, and the mind-consciousness realm. Of all three kinds means that each of these last three realms is of all three kinds. The eighty-eight latent afflictions, together with their co-existent dharmas and the acquisitions that accompany them, are all eliminated by seeing; all other defiled dharmas are eliminated by cultivation; and all undefiled dharmas are not eliminated. Is there not some further dharma eliminated by seeing, namely the state of an ordinary being, and bodily and verbal actions that lead to evil destinies, since these are utterly contrary to the noble path? Even so, these dharmas are not eliminated by seeing. Their characteristics are briefly stated: the undefiled dharmas, the non-sixth-born, and form are definitely not eliminated by seeing. The state of an ordinary being is undefiled and included in the indeterminate, since even those who have abandoned desire and those who have cut off wholesome roots still possess it. If this state of an ordinary being were eliminated by seeing, then one at the stage of the acceptance of the dharma of suffering would still be an ordinary being. The sixth is the mind-sense-base; what arises otherwise than from it is called non-sixth-born, meaning it arises from the five faculties, namely the five consciousnesses and so on. Form means all bodily and verbal action and the like. The former and this form are definitely not eliminated by seeing. Why? Because they are not directly produced by delusion about the truths. Thus what is eliminated by seeing and so on has been explained. Among the eighteen realms, how many are seeing and how many are not seeing? The verse says:

眼法界一分，八種說名見，

The eye, and one part of the dharma-realm, of eight kinds, are called seeing;

五識俱生慧，非見不度故。

The wisdom born together with the five consciousnesses is not seeing, because it does not discriminate and decide.

眼見色同分，非彼能依識，

It is the eye that sees form, not the consciousness that depends on it;

傳說不能觀，彼障諸色故。

it is said that it cannot see forms that are obstructed.

論曰：眼全是見，法界一分八種是見，餘皆非見。何等為八？謂身見等五染汙見、世間正見、有學正見、無學正見。於法界中此八是見，所餘非見。身見等五，隨眠品中時至當說。世間正見，謂意識相應善有漏慧。有學正見，謂有學身中諸無漏見。無學正見，謂無學身中諸無漏見。譬如夜分晝分有雲無云，覩眾色像明昧有異，如是世間諸見有染無染。學無學見，觀察法相明昧不同。何故？世間正見唯意識相應，以五識俱生慧不能決度故，審慮為先決度名見。五識俱慧無如是能，以無分別是故非見。准此，所餘染無染慧及諸餘法非見應知。若爾，眼根不能決度，云何名見？以能明利觀照諸色故亦名見。若眼見者，餘識行時亦應名見。非一切眼皆能現見。誰能現見？謂同分眼與識合位能見非餘。若爾，則應彼能依識見色非眼。不爾，眼識定非能見。所以者何？傳說，不能觀障色故，現見壁等所障諸色則不能觀。若識見者，識無對故，壁等不礙應見障色。於被障色眼識不生，識既不生如何當見？眼識於彼何故不生？許眼見者眼有對故，於彼障色無見功能。識與所依一境轉故，可言於彼眼識不生。許識見者何緣不起？眼豈如身根境合方取而言有對故不見彼耶？又頗胝迦、瑠璃、雲母、水等所障云何得見？是故不由眼有對故，於彼障色無見功能。若爾，所執眼識云何？若於是處光明無隔，於彼障色眼識亦生。若於是處光明有隔，於彼障色眼識不生。識既不生，故不能見。然經說眼能見色者，是見所依，故說能見。如彼經言：意能識法。非意能識，以過去故。何者能識？謂是意識。意是識依，故說能識。或就所依說能依業，如世間說床座言聲。又如經言：眼所識色可愛可樂。然實非此可愛樂色是眼所識。又如經說：梵志當知，以眼為門唯為見色。故知眼識依眼門見。亦不應言門即是見，豈容經說以眼為見唯為見色？

The treatise says: The eye is entirely seeing; one part of the dharma-realm, of eight kinds, is seeing; all the others are not seeing. Which eight? They are the five defiled views, beginning with the view of self; worldly right view; right view of the learner; and right view of the one beyond learning. Within the dharma-realm these eight are seeing, and the rest are not. The five beginning with the view of self will be explained in due course in the chapter on latent afflictions. Worldly right view is wholesome defiled wisdom associated with mind-consciousness. Right view of the learner is the undefiled views in the person of a learner. Right view of the one beyond learning is the undefiled views in the person of one beyond learning. Just as, in the night or the day, with clouds or without clouds, the appearance of forms is clear or dim in different ways, so the worldly views are defiled or undefiled, and the views of learners and those beyond learning observe the characteristics of dharmas with differing clarity. Why? Worldly right view is associated only with mind-consciousness, because the wisdom born together with the five consciousnesses cannot discriminate and decide; what takes careful deliberation as its precondition and then decides is called view. The wisdom accompanying the five consciousnesses has no such capacity, and since it is without conceptual discrimination it is not view. By this the other defiled and undefiled wisdoms and all other dharmas should be understood as not view. If so, the eye faculty cannot discriminate and decide; why is it called seeing? Because it can illuminate and observe forms clearly and sharply, it too is called seeing. If what sees is the eye, then when other consciousnesses are operating it too should be called seeing. Not every eye is able to see directly. Which one can see directly? It is the eye of the same class, in the state of being united with consciousness, that can see, and no other. If so, then the consciousness that depends on it should see form, not the eye. It is not so; eye-consciousness is definitely not what sees. Why? It is said that it cannot observe obstructed forms: one sees directly that forms blocked by a wall and the like cannot be observed. If consciousness saw, then because consciousness has no resistance, it should see obstructed forms, with walls and the like not hindering it. Eye-consciousness does not arise toward an obstructed form; since consciousness does not arise, how could it see? Why does eye-consciousness not arise toward it? If you hold that the eye sees, it is because the eye has resistance that it has no power to see the obstructed form. Because consciousness and its support turn upon a single object, it can be said that eye-consciousness does not arise toward it. If you hold that consciousness sees, why does it not arise? Is it that the eye, like the body faculty, takes its object only on contact, and being said to have resistance does not see it? Moreover, how can one see through crystal, lapis lazuli, mica, water, and the like that obstruct? So it is not because the eye has resistance that it has no power to see the obstructed form. If so, what of the eye-consciousness you maintain? Where light is unbroken, eye-consciousness arises even toward an obstructed form. Where light is broken, eye-consciousness does not arise toward the obstructed form. Since consciousness does not arise, it cannot see. Yet the sutra says that the eye sees form; this speaks of the support of seeing, so it is said to see. As that sutra says: the mind knows dharmas. It is not the mind that knows, because it is past. What knows? It is the mind-consciousness. The mind is the support of consciousness, so it is said to know. Or one speaks of the action of the supported in terms of the support, as in the worldly saying that the bed and seat make a sound. Again, as the sutra says: the forms cognized by the eye are lovely and delightful. But in truth it is not the eye that cognizes these lovely and delightful forms. Again, as the sutra says: Brahmin, you should know that the eye is a door only for seeing forms. Therefore we know that eye-consciousness sees through the door of the eye. Nor should it be said that the door itself is seeing; how could the sutra allow taking the eye as seeing only for seeing forms?

若識能見誰復了別？見與了別二用何異？以即見色名了色故，譬如少分慧名能見亦能簡擇。如是少分識名能見亦能了別。有餘難言：若眼能見，眼是見者，誰是見用？此言非難，如共許識是能了別，然無了者。了用不同，見亦應爾。有餘復言：眼識能見，是見所依故，眼亦名能見。如鳴所依故，亦說鍾能鳴。若爾，眼根識所依，故應名能識。無如是失。世間同許眼識是見，由彼生時說能見色，不言識色。毘婆沙中亦作是說：若眼所得、眼識所受說名所見。是故但說眼名能見，不名能識。唯識現前說能識色，譬如說日名能作晝。經部諸師有作是說：如何共聚楂掣虛空眼色等緣生於眼識？此等於見孰為能所？唯法因果實無作用，為順世情假興言說，眼名能見、識名能了，智者於中不應封著。如世尊說：方域言詞不應堅執，世俗名想不應固求。然迦濕彌羅國毘婆沙宗，說眼能見、耳能聞、鼻能嗅、舌能嘗、身能覺、意能了。於見色時，為一眼見、為二眼見？此無定準。頌曰：

If consciousness can see, what then discerns? What is the difference between the two functions of seeing and discerning? Because seeing form is itself called discerning form, just as a small portion of wisdom is called able to see and also able to discriminate, so a small portion of consciousness is called able to see and also able to discern. Others object: if the eye can see, the eye is the seer; what is the function of seeing? This is no objection: it is like the commonly accepted view that consciousness is what discerns, yet there is no discerner. The function of discerning is different; seeing should be likewise. Others say: eye-consciousness can see, and because the eye is its support the eye too is called able to see, just as a bell is said to ring because it is the support of the sound. If so, then because the eye faculty is the support of consciousness it should be called able to cognize. There is no such fault. The world agrees that eye-consciousness is seeing, and when it arises one says it sees form, not that it cognizes form. The Vibhasha also says: what is obtained by the eye and received by eye-consciousness is called what is seen. So only the eye is called able to see, not able to cognize. Only when consciousness is present does one say it cognizes form, just as the sun is said to make the day. Some Sautrantika masters say: how, with the eye, forms, and other conditions gathered like a chu-chai in empty space, does eye-consciousness arise? Among these, which is the agent and which the object of seeing? There are only cause and effect among dharmas and in truth no agency; to accord with worldly feeling it is provisionally said that the eye is called able to see and consciousness able to discern, and the wise should not cling to this. As the World-Honored One said: do not hold stubbornly to regional expressions; do not insist on worldly names and notions. Yet the Kashmiri Vibhasha school says that the eye sees, the ear hears, the nose smells, the tongue tastes, the body feels, and the mind knows. When seeing form, is it seen by one eye or by two eyes? There is no fixed rule about this. The verse says:

或二眼俱時，見色分明故。

Sometimes with both eyes at once, because form is seen clearly.

論曰：阿毘達磨諸大論師鹹言：或時二眼俱見，以開二眼見色分明，開一眼時不分明故。又開一眼觸一眼時，便於現前見二月等，閉一觸一此事則無，是故或時二眼俱見。非所依別識成二分，住無方故不同礙色。若此宗說眼見耳聞乃至意了，彼所取境根正取時，為至不至？頌曰：

The treatise says: The great Abhidharma masters all say: sometimes both eyes see together, because when both eyes are open form is seen clearly, and when one eye is open it is not clear. Moreover, when one eye is open and one eye is touched, two moons and the like appear before one; this does not happen when one is closed and one touched; therefore sometimes both eyes see together. It is not that the supports differ and so consciousness becomes two parts; consciousness has no location, so it is unlike obstructive form. If, in this school, the eye sees, the ear hears, and so on up to the mind knows, then when the faculty properly takes its object, is the object reached or not reached? The verse says:

眼耳意根境，不至三相違。

The eye, the ear, and the mind take objects that are not reached; the other three are contrary to this.

論曰：眼耳意根取非至境，謂眼能見遠處諸色，眼中藥等則不能觀。耳亦能聞遠處聲響，逼耳根者則不能聞。若眼耳根唯取至境，則修定者應不修生天眼、耳根，如鼻根等。若眼能見不至色者，何故不能普見一切遠有障等不至諸色？如何磁石吸不至鐵，非吸一切不至鐵耶？執見至境亦同此難。何故不能普見一切眼藥籌等至眼諸色？又如鼻等能取至境，然不能取一切與根俱有香等。如是眼根雖見不至而非一切，耳根亦爾。意無色故，非能有至。有執：耳根通取至境及不至境，自耳中聲亦能聞故。所餘鼻等三有色根，與上相違唯取至境。如何知鼻唯取至香？由斷息時不嗅香故。云何名至？謂無間生。又諸極微為相觸不？迦濕彌羅國毘婆沙師說不相觸。所以者何？若諸極微遍體相觸，即有實物體相雜過。若觸一分，成有分失，然諸極微更無細分。若爾，何故相擊發聲？但由極微無間生故。若許相觸，擊石拊手體應相糅。不相觸者，聚色相擊云何不散？風界攝持故令不散。或有風界能有壞散，如劫壞時。或有風界能有成攝，如劫成時。云何三根由無間生名取至境？即由無間名取至境，謂於中間都無片物。又和合色許有分故，相觸無失。由許此理，毘婆沙文義善成立。故彼問言：諸是觸物為是觸為因故生？為非觸為因故生？諸非觸物為問亦爾。彼就此理為不定答，有時是觸為因生於非觸，謂和合物正離散時。有時非觸為因生於是觸，謂離散物正和合時。有時是觸為因生於是觸，謂和合物復和合時。有時非觸為因生於非觸，謂向遊塵同類相續。尊者世友說：諸極微相觸即應住至後念。然大德說：一切極微實不相觸，但由無間假立觸名。此大德意應可愛樂。若異此者，是諸極微應有間隙。中間既空，誰障其行許為有對？又離極微無和合色，和合相觸即觸極微。如可變礙，此亦應爾。又許極微若有方分，觸與不觸皆應有分。

The treatise says: The eye, ear, and mind faculties take objects that are not reached. For example, the eye can see distant forms, but cannot observe medicine and the like placed in the eye. The ear can also hear distant sounds, but cannot hear what presses against the ear faculty. If the eye and ear faculties took only objects that are reached, then those who cultivate meditation should not cultivate and produce the divine eye and divine ear, just as with the nose faculty and the like. If the eye can see forms that are not reached, why can it not see everything, all distant forms that are obstructed and so on? How is it that a magnet attracts iron that it does not reach, yet does not attract all iron that it does not reach? The view that it sees what it reaches faces the same objection: why can it not see all the eye-medicine sticks and other forms that touch the eye? Again, the nose and so on can take objects that are reached, yet they cannot take all the smells and so on that exist together with the faculty. So although the eye sees what it does not reach, it does not do so for everything, and the ear is likewise. The mind has no form, so it cannot have reaching. Some hold that the ear faculty takes both objects that are reached and those that are not, because it can also hear sound within the ear itself. The other three faculties with form, the nose and so on, are contrary to the above and take only objects that are reached. How do we know the nose takes only reached smell? Because when breathing is cut off, it does not smell. How is it called reached? It means arising without interval. Do ultimate particles touch one another? The Kashmiri Vibhasha masters say they do not touch. Why? If ultimate particles touched with their whole bodies, there would be the fault of the bodies of real things mixing together. If they touched with one part, they would have parts, yet ultimate particles have no finer parts. If so, why does their striking produce sound? It is only because ultimate particles arise without interval. If you allow that they touch, then when stones are struck or hands clapped, the substances should blend. If they do not touch, how do aggregates of form, when struck, not scatter? Because the wind element holds them together so that they do not scatter. There is a wind element that can destroy and scatter, as at the destruction of a world-age; and there is a wind element that can form and gather, as at the formation of a world-age. How do the three faculties take reached objects through arising without interval? It is by being without interval that they are said to take reached objects, meaning there is not a single thing in between. Moreover, since combined form is admitted to have parts, there is no fault in its touching. By accepting this principle, the meaning of the Vibhasha is well established. Therefore the question is put: are things that touch produced because of touching, or produced because of non-touching? The same question applies to things that do not touch. They give an indeterminate answer on this principle: at times what touches is the cause that produces what does not touch, namely when combined things are being dispersed; at times what does not touch is the cause that produces what touches, namely when dispersed things are being combined; at times what touches is the cause that produces what touches, namely when combined things are again combined; and at times what does not touch is the cause that produces what does not touch, namely the same-kind continuity of drifting dust. The Venerable Vasumitra said: ultimate particles that touch one another should remain until the next moment. But the Great Virtue said: in truth no ultimate particles touch one another; touch is only provisionally named because of arising without interval. This view of the Great Virtue is pleasing. If it were otherwise, ultimate particles would have gaps between them. If the middle is empty, what blocks their movement so that they are said to have resistance? Moreover, apart from ultimate particles there is no combined form; if combined things touch, they touch the ultimate particles. Just as with changeable resistance, so this too should be understood. Furthermore, if ultimate particles are admitted to have spatial parts, then touching and not touching should both involve parts.

若無方分，設許相觸亦無斯過。又眼等根，為於自境唯取等量，速疾轉故，如旋火輪見大山等？為於自境通取等量不等量耶？頌曰：

If they have no spatial parts, then even if they are admitted to touch there is no such fault. Further, do the eye and the other faculties take only an object of equal measure to themselves, because they turn so swiftly, as a whirling firebrand appears as a wheel and one sees a great mountain and so on? Or do they, toward their own objects, take both objects of equal and unequal measure? The verse says:

應知鼻等三，唯取等量境。

It should be known that the three, the nose and the rest, take only objects of equal measure.

論曰：前說至境鼻等三根，應知唯能取等量境。如根微量，境微亦然，相稱合生鼻等識故。眼耳不定，謂眼於色有時取小如見毛端，有時取大如暫開目見大山等，有時取等如見蒲桃。如是耳根，聽蚊雷等所發種種小大音聲，隨其所應小大等量。意無質礙，不可辯其形量差別。云何眼等諸根極微安布差別？眼根極微在眼星上傍布而住，如香荾花清澈映覆令無分散。有說：重累如丸而住，體清澈故，如頗胝迦不相障礙。耳根極微居耳穴內旋環而住，如卷樺皮。鼻根極微居鼻頞內背上面下，如雙爪甲。此初三根橫作行度處無高下，如冠花鬘。舌根極微布在舌上，形如半月。傳說：舌中如毛端量，非為舌根極微所遍。身根極微遍住身分，如身形量。女根極微形如鼓𣞙，男根極微形如指𩎽。眼根極微有時一切皆是同分，有時一切皆彼同分，有時一分是彼同分餘是同分。乃至舌根極微亦爾。身根極微定無一切皆是同分，乃至極熱捺落迦中猛焰纏身，猶有無量身根極微是彼同分。傳說：身根設遍發識身應散壞，以無根境各一極微為所依緣能發身識。五識決定積集多微，方成所依所緣性故。即由此理亦說極微名無見體，不可見故。如前所說識有六種，謂眼識界乃至意識，為如五識唯緣現在意識通緣三世非世，如是諸識依亦爾耶？不爾，云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The three faculties of nose and so on, said earlier to take reached objects, should be known to take only objects of equal measure. As the faculty is minute in measure, so the object is minute too, because they correspond and so give rise to nose-consciousness and the rest. The eye and ear are not fixed: with form the eye sometimes takes a small image and sees the tip of a hair, sometimes takes a large image and sees a great mountain on briefly opening the eyes, and sometimes takes an image of equal size and sees a grape. Likewise the ear faculty, hearing the various small and large sounds emitted by mosquitoes, thunder, and so on, takes small or large measure as appropriate. The mind has no material obstruction, so its differences of shape and measure cannot be determined. How, then, are the ultimate particles of the eye and other faculties arranged differently? The ultimate particles of the eye faculty lie spread out across the pupil, like clear and transparent flowers of the sugar-cane type covering it so that they do not scatter. Some say they are piled up like pellets, and because their substance is clear, they do not obstruct one another, like crystal. The ultimate particles of the ear faculty lie inside the ear cavity, coiled round like rolled birch bark. The ultimate particles of the nose faculty lie inside the nasal bridge, facing upward on the back and downward on the front, like two fingernails. These first three faculties lie transversely in rows without height or depth, like a garland on a crown. The ultimate particles of the tongue faculty are spread on the tongue in the shape of a half-moon. It is said that on the tongue there is a spot the size of a hair tip that is not pervaded by the ultimate particles of the tongue faculty. The ultimate particles of the body faculty pervade the parts of the body, in the measure of the body's shape. The ultimate particles of the female faculty are shaped like a drum, and those of the male faculty like a finger-tip. The ultimate particles of the eye faculty are sometimes all of the same class, sometimes all of the counterpart class, and sometimes one part is of the counterpart class and the rest of the same class. The same holds up to the tongue faculty. The ultimate particles of the body faculty are definitely never all of the same class; even in the hottest hell, with raging flames wrapped around the body, there are still countless ultimate particles of the body faculty that are of the counterpart class. It is said that if the body faculty pervaded everything, the body would be scattered and destroyed once consciousness arose; this is because a single ultimate particle each of faculty and object, without any more, can serve as the support and the object condition that give rise to body-consciousness. Only the accumulation of many particles makes up the nature of a support and an object. By this same reasoning, the ultimate particle is also said to have an unseeable nature, because it cannot be seen. As was said before, consciousness is of six kinds, namely eye-consciousness up to mind-consciousness; the five consciousnesses take only the present, while mind-consciousness takes the three times and what is outside time. Are the supports of the consciousnesses likewise? No. How, then? The verse says:

後依唯過去，五識依或俱。

The last depends only on the past; the five consciousnesses depend on the past or the simultaneous.

論曰：意識唯依無間滅意，眼等五識所依或俱，或言表此亦依過去。眼是眼識俱生所依，如是乃至身是身識俱生所依，同現世故。無間滅意是過去依。此五識身所依各二，謂眼等五是別所依，意根為五通所依性，故如是說。若是眼識所依性者，即是眼識等無間緣耶？設是眼識等無間緣者，復是眼識所依性耶？應作四句。第一句，謂俱生眼根。第二句，謂無間滅心所法界。第三句，謂過去意根。第四句，謂除所說法。乃至身識亦爾，各各應說自根。意識應作順前句答，謂是意識所依性者，定是意識等無間緣。有是意識等無間緣，非與意識為所依性，謂無間滅心所法界。何因識起俱託二緣，得所依名在根非境？頌曰：

The treatise says: Mind-consciousness depends only on the mind that has just ceased without interval. The supports of the five consciousnesses, the eye and the rest, are either simultaneous, and the word "or" indicates that they also depend on the past. The eye is the simultaneous support of eye-consciousness, and likewise up to the body, which is the simultaneous support of body-consciousness, because they are of the present. The mind that has just ceased without interval is the past support. Each of these groups of five consciousnesses thus has two supports: the eye and the other four are the particular supports, and the mind faculty is the common support for all five, which is why it is said so. Is what has the nature of a support of eye-consciousness the immediately preceding condition of eye-consciousness? And if something is the immediately preceding condition of eye-consciousness, does it have the nature of a support of eye-consciousness? A four-way alternative should be made. First, the simultaneous eye faculty. Second, the mental dharma-realm that has just ceased without interval. Third, the past mind faculty. Fourth, whatever is other than what has been said. The same holds up to body-consciousness, each to be spoken of with its own faculty. For mind-consciousness, answer by following the earlier alternative: whatever has the nature of a support of mind-consciousness is definitely the immediately preceding condition of mind-consciousness. There is what is the immediately preceding condition of mind-consciousness but is not its support, namely the mental dharma-realm that has just ceased without interval. For what reason, when consciousness arises, relying on two conditions together, is the name of support given to the faculty and not to the object? The verse says:

隨根變識異，故眼等名依。

Because consciousness differs as the faculty changes, the eye and the rest are called supports.

論曰：眼等即是眼等六界，由眼等根有轉變故。諸識轉異，隨根增損識明昧故。非色等變令識有異，以識隨根不隨境故。依名唯在眼等非餘。何緣色等正是所識而名眼識，乃至意識不名色識乃至法識？頌曰：

The treatise says: The eye and the rest are the six realms of the eye and so on, because they change through the faculties of the eye and so on. The consciousnesses vary, because as the faculty increases or decreases the clarity or dimness of consciousness follows. It is not that a change in form and the like makes consciousness different, since consciousness follows the faculty and not the object. The name of support belongs only to the eye and the rest, not to others. For what reason, though form and the rest are exactly what is cognized, is it called eye-consciousness, and up to mind-consciousness is not called form-consciousness up to dharma-consciousness? The verse says:

彼及不共因，故隨根說識。

Because of that, and because of the uncommon cause, consciousness is named according to the faculty.

論曰：彼謂前說眼等名依，根是依故隨根說識。及不共者，謂眼唯自眼識所依，色亦通為他身眼識及通自他意識所取，乃至身觸應知亦爾，由所依勝及不共因故識得名。隨根非境，如名鼓聲及麥牙等。隨身所住眼見色時，身眼色識地為同不？應言此四或異或同，謂生欲界，若以自地眼見自地色，四皆自地。若以初靜慮眼見欲界色，身色慾界、眼識初定。見初定色，身屬欲界、三屬初定。若以二靜慮眼見欲界色，身色慾界、眼屬二定、識屬初定。見初定色，身屬欲界、眼屬二定、色識初定。見二定色，身屬欲界、眼色二定、識屬初定。如是若以三四靜慮地眼見下地色或自地色，如理應思。生初靜慮，若以自地眼見自地色，四皆同地見欲界色，三屬初定、色屬欲界。若以二靜慮眼見初定色，三屬初定、眼屬二定。見欲界色，身識初定、色屬欲界、眼屬二定。見二定色，身識初定、眼色二定。如是若以三四靜慮地眼見自地色或下上色，如理應思。如是生二三四靜慮，以自他地眼見自他地色，如理應思。餘界亦應如是分別。今當略辯此決定相。頌曰：

The treatise says: "That" refers to the earlier statement that the eye and the rest are called supports; since the faculty is the support, consciousness is named according to the faculty. And the uncommon means that the eye is the support only of its own eye-consciousness, whereas form is also taken by the eye-consciousness of other bodies and by the mind-consciousness of oneself and others; the same holds for touch up to the body, to be understood likewise. Because the support is superior and the cause is uncommon, consciousness obtains its name. It follows the faculty, not the object, as with the names of a drum's sound and of a sprout of wheat, and the like. When, according to the body in which one dwells, one sees form with the eye, are the planes of body, eye, form, and consciousness the same or not? It should be said that these four may be different or the same. For one born in the desire realm, if one sees form of one's own plane with the eye of one's own plane, all four are of one's own plane. If one sees desire-realm form with the eye of the first meditation, the body and the form are of the desire realm and the eye and consciousness of the first meditation. In seeing form of the first meditation, the body belongs to the desire realm and the other three to the first meditation. If one sees desire-realm form with the eye of the second meditation, the body and form are of the desire realm, the eye is of the second meditation, and the consciousness is of the first meditation. In seeing form of the first meditation, the body belongs to the desire realm, the eye to the second meditation, and the form and consciousness to the first meditation. In seeing form of the second meditation, the body belongs to the desire realm, the eye and form to the second meditation, and the consciousness to the first meditation. Likewise, if one sees form of a lower plane or of one's own plane with the eye of the third or fourth meditation plane, one should reflect according to the principle. For one born in the first meditation, if one sees form of one's own plane with the eye of one's own plane, all four are of the same plane; in seeing desire-realm form, three belong to the first meditation and the form to the desire realm. If one sees form of the first meditation with the eye of the second meditation, three belong to the first meditation and the eye to the second. In seeing desire-realm form, the body and consciousness belong to the first meditation, the form to the desire realm, and the eye to the second meditation. In seeing form of the second meditation, the body and consciousness belong to the first meditation and the eye and form to the second meditation. Likewise, if one sees form of one's own plane or of lower and higher planes with the eye of the third or fourth meditation plane, one should reflect according to the principle. Likewise for those born in the second, third, and fourth meditations, seeing forms of one's own and other planes with the eye of one's own and other planes, one should reflect according to the principle. Other realms should be analyzed in the same way. Now the determinate characteristics of this should be briefly set out. The verse says:

眼不下於身，色識非上眼，

The eye is not lower than the body; form and consciousness are not higher than the eye;

色於識一切，二於身亦然。

form is, in relation to consciousness, in all cases; and the two in relation to the body likewise.

如眼耳亦然，次三皆自地，

As with the eye, so with the ear; the next three are all of their own plane;

身識自下地，意不定應知。

body-consciousness is of its own or a lower plane; the mind is indeterminate, to be understood.

論曰：身眼色三皆通五地，謂在欲界四靜慮中，眼識唯在欲界初定。此中眼根望身生地，或等或上終不居下。色識望眼等下非上，下眼不能見上色故、上識不依下地眼故。色望於識通等上下，色識於身如色於識。廣說耳界應知如眼，謂耳不下於身，聲識非上耳，聲於識一切。二於身亦然，隨其所應廣如眼釋。鼻舌身三總皆自地，於中別者，謂身與觸其地必同。識望觸身或自或下，自謂若生欲界初定，生上三定謂之為下。應知意界四事不定，謂意有時與身識法四皆同地，有時上下。身唯五地，三通一切。於遊等至及受生時，隨其所應或同或異，如後定品當廣分別。為捨繁文故今未辯，前後再述用少功多。傍論已周，應辯正論。今當思擇，十八界中誰六識內幾識所識？幾常、幾無常？幾根、幾非根？頌曰。

The treatise says: The body, eye and visible form all extend through five levels; that is, within the four dhyanas of the desire realm, eye-consciousness exists only in the first stage of concentration of the desire realm. Here the eye faculty, relative to the level where the body is born, is either equal to it or higher, but never lower. Visual form and consciousness, relative to the eye, are equal or lower and not higher: a lower eye cannot see a higher form, and a higher consciousness does not depend on a lower eye. Form, relative to consciousness, extends to equal, higher and lower levels; consciousness and form are to the body as form is to consciousness. As for the ear element and so on, one should know it is like the eye: the ear is not lower than the body, auditory consciousness is not higher than the ear, and sound relative to consciousness covers all levels. The relation of the two to the body also follows the same pattern, to be explained at length as for the eye according to what applies. The nose, tongue and body, all three, are entirely of their own level; in distinguishing among them, the body and the tangible must be of the same level. Consciousness, relative to the tangible and body, is either of its own level or lower: if one is born in the first stage of concentration of the desire realm, being born in the upper three stages of concentration is called lower. One should know that the four matters of the mind element are indeterminate: the mind sometimes has the same level as the four, namely body-consciousness and mental objects, and sometimes higher or lower. The body belongs to only five levels, while the other three extend through all. In wandering, in attainments, and at the time of rebirth, it is the same or different according to what applies, as should be distinguished at length in the chapter on concentration. To avoid prolixity it is not discussed here; to repeat it before and after would take little effort but yield much. The digression is now complete, and we should turn to the main discussion. Now one should consider, among the eighteen elements, which are known by how many of the six consciousnesses? Which are permanent and which impermanent? Which are faculties and which are not? The verse says:

五外二所識，常法界無為，

The five external ones are known by two, the permanent is the element of mental objects, the unconditioned,

法一分是根，並內界十二。

One part of mental objects is a faculty, together with the twelve internal elements.

論曰：十八界中色等五界，如其次第眼等五識各一所識，又總皆是意識所識。如是五界各六識中二識所識。由此準知，餘十三界一切唯是意識所識，非五識身所緣境故。十八界中無有一界全是常者，唯法一分無為是常，義準無常法餘餘界。又經中說二十二根，謂眼根、耳根、鼻根、舌根、身根、意根、女根、男根、命根、樂根、苦根、喜根、憂根、捨根、信根、勤根、念根、定根、慧根、未知當知根、已知根、具知根。阿毘達磨諸大論師，皆越經中六處次第，於命根後方說意根，有所緣故。如是所說二十二根，十八界中內十二界法一分攝。法一分者，命等十一、後三一分，法界攝故。內十二者，眼等五根如自名攝，意根通是七心界攝，後三一分意意識攝，女根、男根即是身界一分所攝。如後當辯。義準所餘，色等五界法界一分皆體非根。

The treatise says: Among the eighteen elements, the five elements of form and so on, in this order, are each known by one of the five consciousnesses, eye-consciousness and so on, and all are also known by mental consciousness. Thus each of the five elements is known by two of the six consciousnesses. From this it follows that the other thirteen elements are all known only by mental consciousness, because they are not objects of the five consciousness groups. Among the eighteen elements there is not one that is entirely permanent; only one part of the element of mental objects, the unconditioned, is permanent, and by implication the other dharmas and other elements are impermanent. Again, the sutras speak of twenty-two faculties, namely: the eye faculty, ear faculty, nose faculty, tongue faculty, body faculty, mind faculty, female faculty, male faculty, life faculty, faculty of pleasure, faculty of pain, faculty of joy, faculty of sorrow, faculty of equanimity, faculty of faith, faculty of effort, faculty of mindfulness, faculty of concentration, faculty of wisdom, the faculty of coming to know what is not yet known, the faculty of final knowledge, and the faculty of one who has fully known. The great masters of the Abhidharma all depart from the order of the six sense bases in the sutras and speak of the mind faculty only after the life faculty, because it has objects. The twenty-two faculties spoken of in this way are included in the twelve internal elements and in one part of the element of mental objects. As for one part of mental objects: the eleven beginning with life, and one part of the last three, are included in the element of mental objects. As for the twelve internal ones: the five faculties from eye onward are included under their own names; the mind faculty is entirely included in the seven mind elements; one part of the last three is included in the mind and mental consciousness; and the female and male faculties are included in one part of the body element, as will be explained later. By implication, the other elements, the five elements of form and so on, and one part of mental objects, are not faculties in their nature.

尊者世親造

Composed by the Venerable Vasubandhu.

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by the Tripitaka Master Xuanzang by imperial order.

分別根品第二之一

Chapter 2, Analysis of the Faculties, Part 1.

如是因界已列諸根，即於此中根是何義？最勝自在光顯名根，由此總成根增上義。此增上義誰望於誰？頌曰：

Having thus listed the faculties after the elements, what then is the meaning of "faculty" here? What is supreme, sovereign and illustrious is called a faculty, and so the meaning of dominance is wholly established in faculty. With regard to this meaning of dominance, what has dominance over what? The verse says:

傳說五於四，四根於二種，

It is said that five faculties have dominance over four matters, four faculties over two kinds of matters,

五八染淨中，各別為增上。

The five feelings and eight faculties each exercise dominance separately over defilement and purity.

論曰：眼等五根各於四事能為增上：一莊嚴身、二導養身、三生識等、四不共事。且眼耳根莊嚴身者，謂若盲聾身醜陋故。導養身者，謂因見聞避險難故。生識等者，謂發二識及相應故。不共事者，謂能見色聞聲別故。鼻舌身根莊嚴身者，如眼耳說。導養身者，謂於段食能受用故。生識等者，謂發三識及相應故。不共事者，謂嗅甞覺香味觸故。女、男、命、意各於二事能為增上。且女、男根二增上者，一有情異、二分別異。有情異者，由此二根令諸有情女男類別。分別異者，由此二根形相言音乳房等別。有說：此於染淨增上故言於二。所以者何？本性損壞。扇搋半擇及二形人無不律儀無間斷善諸雜染法，亦無律儀得果離染諸清淨法。命根二者，謂於眾同分能續及能持。意根二者，謂能續後有及自在隨行。能續後有者，如契經言：時健達縛於二心內隨一現前，謂或愛俱、或恚俱等。自在隨行者，如契經言：

The treatise says: The five faculties, eye and so on, can each exercise dominance over four matters: first, adorning the body; second, sustaining the body; third, giving rise to consciousness and so on; fourth, the unshared function. First, the eye and ear faculties adorn the body, because if one is blind or deaf the body is ugly. They sustain the body, because by seeing and hearing one avoids dangers and difficulties. They give rise to consciousness and so on, because they produce the two consciousnesses and what accompanies them. The unshared function is that they can see forms and hear sounds, each distinctly. The nose, tongue and body faculties adorn the body as explained for the eye and ear. They sustain the body, because they are able to take in coarse food. They give rise to consciousness and so on, because they produce three consciousnesses and what accompanies them. The unshared function is smelling, tasting, and feeling smells, flavors and tangibles. The female, male, life and mind faculties each exercise dominance over two matters. First, the female and male faculties have two kinds of dominance: first, difference among sentient beings; second, difference of distinctions. The difference among sentient beings is that through these two faculties sentient beings are classified as female and male. The difference of distinctions is that through these two faculties there are differences of bodily form, voice, breasts, and so on. Some say: these have dominance over defilement and purity, and so are said to be for two matters. Why? Those whose nature is damaged, namely the sandha (born without male organ), the pandaka (unable to have sexual intercourse) and hermaphrodites, have no non-restraint, no heinous acts, no severing of good roots or other defiled dharmas, and also no restraint, no attainment of fruits, no freedom from desire or other pure dharmas. The life faculty has two functions: it continues and sustains the commonality of beings. The mind faculty has two: it continues later existence, and it follows freely. Continuing later existence is as the sutra says: At that time the gandharva (intermediate-existence being) has one of two minds appear before it, namely either one accompanied by craving or one accompanied by anger, and so on. Following freely is as the sutra says:

心能導世間，心能遍攝受，

The mind leads the world, the mind gathers up everything,

如是心一法，皆自在隨行。

Thus this one dharma, the mind, all follows its sovereignty.

樂等五受、信等八根，於染淨中如次增上。樂等五受染增上者，貪等隨眠所隨增故。信等八根淨增上者，諸清淨法隨生長故。有餘師說：樂等於淨亦為增上。如契經說：「樂故心定」、「苦為信依」，亦「出離依喜及憂、捨」。毘婆沙師傳說如此。有餘師說：能導養身非眼等用，是識增上，識了方能避於險難，受段食故。見色等用亦非異識，故不共事於眼等根，不可立為別增上用，故非由此眼等成根。若爾，云何？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) The five feelings, pleasure and so on, and the eight faculties, faith and so on, exercise dominance in defilement and purity respectively. The five feelings, pleasure and so on, have dominance in defilement, because the latent tendencies such as greed increase accordingly. The eight faculties, faith and so on, have dominance in purity, because pure dharmas grow accordingly. Some other masters say: pleasure and so on also have dominance in purity. As the sutra says: "Because of pleasure the mind is concentrated," "suffering is the basis of faith," and also "the basis of renunciation is joy, as well as sorrow and equanimity." This is what the Vibhasa masters transmit. Some other masters say: sustaining the body is not a function of the eye and so on but a dominance of consciousness, because one avoids dangers and takes in coarse food only through consciousness. Seeing forms and so on is also not a function different from consciousness. Therefore the unshared function cannot be established as a separate dominant function of the eye and other faculties, and so the eye and others are not faculties by this. If so, what then? The verse says:

了自境增上，總立於六根，

Because of dominance in apprehending their own objects, six faculties are established together,

從身立二根，女男性增上，

From the body two faculties are established, because of dominance over female and male nature,

於同住雜染，清淨增上故。

Because of dominance in the abiding of the commonality of beings, in defilement,

應知命五受，信等立為根，

And in purity. One should know that life and the five feelings, faith and so on are established as faculties,

未當知已知，具知根亦爾，

The faculty of coming to know what is not yet known, of final knowledge, and of one who has fully known are likewise,

於得後後道，涅槃等增上。

Because of dominance in attaining successive paths, nirvana and so on.

論曰：了自境者，謂六識身。眼等五根於能了別各別境識有增上用，第六意根於能了別一切境識有增上用，故眼等六各立為根。豈不色等於能了識亦有增上應立為根？境於識中無增上用。夫增上用謂勝自在，眼於所發了色識中最勝自在故名增上，於了眾色為通因故，識隨眼根有明昧故。色則不然，二相違故。乃至意根於法亦爾。從身復立女男根者，女男性中有增上故。女男根體不離身根，身一分中立此名故。如其次第，女男性中，此女男根有增上用，此處少異餘處身根，故從身根別立為二。女身形類音聲作業志樂差別，名為女性。男身形類音聲作業志樂不同，名為男性。二性差別由女男根，故說女男根於二性增上，於眾同分住中命根有增上用，於雜染中樂等五受有增上用。所以者何？由契經說：於樂受貪隨增，於苦受瞋隨增，於不苦不樂受無明隨增故。於清淨中信等五根有增上用。所以者何？由此勢力伏諸煩惱引聖道故。言應知者，勸許一一各能為根，三無漏根於得後後道涅槃等有增上用。言亦爾者，類顯一一各能為根，謂未知當知根於得已知根道有增上用，已知根於得具知根道有增上用，具知根於得涅槃有增上用，非心未解脫能般涅槃故。等言為顯復有異門。云何異門？謂見所斷煩惱滅中未知當知根有增上用，於修所斷煩惱滅中已知根有增上用，於現法樂住中具知根有增上用，由此能領受解脫喜樂故。若增上故立為根者，無明等性應立為根，無明等因於行等果各各別有增上用故。又語具等應立為根，語具手足大小便處，於語執行棄樂事中如其次第有增上故。如是等事不應立根，由所許根有如是相。頌曰：

The treatise says: Apprehending their own objects refers to the six groups of consciousness. The five faculties, eye and so on, have dominance over consciousness that can discern each separate object, and the sixth, the mind faculty, has dominance over consciousness that can discern all objects; therefore the six, eye and so on, are each established as faculties. But do form and so on not also have dominance in the ability to be cognized, so that they should be established as faculties? An object has no dominant function with respect to consciousness. Dominant function means supreme sovereignty: the eye is called dominant because it is supreme and sovereign in the consciousness that perceives form which it produces, being the common cause for the cognition of various forms, and because consciousness is clear or dim according to the eye faculty. Form is not like this, because the two are contrary. The same holds up to the mind faculty with respect to mental objects. From the body, the female and male faculties are further established, because they have dominance in female and male nature. The substance of the female and male faculties is not apart from the body faculty; they are named this within one part of the body. In order, they have dominant function with respect to female and male nature, and in this they differ slightly from other places in the body faculty; therefore they are separately established as two from the body faculty. Differences in the bodily form, voice, activity and inclinations of the female body are called female nature. Differences in the bodily form, voice, activity and inclinations of the male body are called male nature. The differences between the two natures come from the female and male faculties, and so it is said that the female and male faculties have dominance over the two natures. In the abiding of the commonality of beings, the life faculty has dominant function; in defilement, the five feelings, pleasure and so on, have dominant function. Why? Because, according to the sutra, greed latently increases with regard to pleasant feeling, anger latently increases with regard to painful feeling, and ignorance latently increases with regard to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. In purity, the five faculties of faith and so on have dominant function. Why? Because by their power they subdue the afflictions and lead to the noble path. The word "one should know" encourages us to allow each one separately to be a faculty. The three undefiled faculties have dominant function in attaining successive paths, nirvana and so on. The word "likewise" shows by analogy that each one can be a faculty: the faculty of coming to know what is not yet known has dominant function in attaining the path of the faculty of final knowledge; the faculty of final knowledge has dominant function in attaining the path of the faculty of one who has fully known; and the faculty of one who has fully known has dominant function in attaining nirvana, because a mind not yet liberated cannot enter nirvana. The word "and so on" shows that there are still other aspects. What are these other aspects? In the cessation of afflictions to be severed by seeing, the faculty of coming to know what is not yet known has dominant function; in the cessation of afflictions to be severed by cultivation, the faculty of final knowledge has dominant function; and in dwelling in pleasure in the present life, the faculty of one who has fully known has dominant function, because through it one experiences the joy of liberation. If being a faculty were established on the basis of dominance, then ignorance and the like should be established as faculties, since ignorance and other causes each have separate dominant function over their effects such as formations. Also the organs of speech and so on should be established as faculties, since the organs of speech, the hands and feet, and the places of excretion have dominance, in order, over speaking, grasping, walking, discarding, and pleasure. Matters such as these should not be established as faculties, because the faculties that are accepted have the following marks. The verse says:

心所依此別，此住此雜染，

The basis of the mind, its differences, its abiding, its defilement,

此資糧此淨，由此量立根。

Its provisions, its purification: by these measures the faculties are established.

論曰：心所依者，眼等六根。此內六處是有情本，此相差別由女男根，復由命根此一期住。此成雜染由五受根，此淨資糧由信等五，此成清淨由後三根，由此立根事皆究竟。是故不應許無明等及語具等亦立為根，彼無此中增上用故。復有餘師別說根相。頌曰：

The treatise says: The basis of the mind is the six faculties, eye and so on. These six internal bases are the root of sentient beings. The difference in their characteristics comes from the female and male faculties, and from the life faculty, which makes them abide for one lifetime. Their defilement is achieved through the five faculties of feeling; the provisions for their purification come from the five faculties of faith and so on; and their purification is achieved through the last three faculties. In this way the establishment of faculties is complete. Therefore one should not accept ignorance and so on, or the organs of speech and so on, as faculties, because they have no dominant function in this regard. Some other masters set out the characteristics of the faculties differently. The verse says:

或流轉所依，及生住受用，

Either as the basis of transmigration, and of birth, abiding and enjoyment,

建立前十四，還滅後亦然。

The first fourteen are established, and likewise the last eight for the return to cessation.

論曰：或言顯此是餘師意，約流轉還滅立二十二根。流轉所依謂眼等六，生由女男從彼生故。住由命根，仗彼住故。受用由五受因，彼領納故。約此建立前十四根。還滅位中即約此四義類別故立後八根。還滅所依謂信等五，於三無漏由初故生，由次故住，由後受用，根量由此無減無增。即由此緣經立次第，不應語具於語為根，待學差別語方成故。手足不應於執行事各立為根，無異性故，謂即手足異處異相差別生時名執行故。又離手足亦有執行，如腹行類。是故手足不可於彼建立為根。出大便處於能棄事不應立根，重物於空遍墮落故，又由風力引令出故。出小便處於生樂事不應立根，即女男根起此樂故。又諸喉齒眼瞼支節應立為根，於能吞嚼開閉屈申有力用故。或一切因於自所作有力用故皆應立根，彼雖有用非增上故。不立根者，此語具等亦非增上不應立根。此中眼等乃至男根如前已說。命根體是不相應故，不相應中自當廣辯。信等體是心所法故，心所法中亦當廣辯。樂等五受、三無漏根，更無辯處故今應釋。頌曰：

The treatise says: The word "either" shows that this is the view of other masters, who establish twenty-two faculties in terms of transmigration and return to cessation. The basis of transmigration is the six, eye and so on; birth is by the female and male faculties, because beings are born from them; abiding is by the life faculty, because they rely on it to abide; enjoyment is by the five feelings, because those are what experience. In terms of these the first fourteen faculties are established. In the stage of return to cessation, the last eight faculties are established in terms of these same four kinds of meaning. The basis of return to cessation is the five of faith and so on; with regard to the three undefiled faculties, the first gives birth, the next makes them abide, and the last is the enjoyment, so that the number of faculties neither lacks nor exceeds this. By this condition the sutras establish their order. The organs of speech should not be a faculty for speech, because speech is accomplished through differences of expectation and learning. The hands and feet should not be established as faculties for the acts of grasping and walking, because they have no different nature: when the hands and feet are in different places and have different characteristics, they are called grasping and walking at the time they arise. Also grasping and walking exist apart from hands and feet, as in those that crawl on their bellies. Therefore the hands and feet cannot be established as faculties for those acts. The place of defecation should not be established as a faculty for the act of discarding, because heavy things fall everywhere through empty space, and also because they are pushed out by the force of wind. The place of urination should not be established as a faculty for the act of pleasure, because the female and male faculties give rise to this pleasure. Further, should the throat, teeth, eyelids and joints be established as faculties, because they have power in swallowing and chewing, opening and closing, bending and stretching? Or should all causes be established as faculties, because each has power over what it does? Although they have functions, they are not dominant. Those that are not established as faculties, such as the organs of speech and so on, are likewise not dominant and so should not be established as faculties. Among these, the eye and so on, up to the male faculty, have been explained above. The life faculty is by nature non-associated, so it will be discussed at length in the section on non-associated dharmas. Faith and so on are by nature mental factors, so they will also be discussed at length in the section on mental factors. As for the five feelings, pleasure and so on, and the three undefiled faculties, there is no other place for discussion, so they are to be explained now. The verse says:

身不悅名苦，即此悅名樂，

Bodily displeasure is called pain, this same pleasure is called pleasure,

及三定心悅，餘處此名喜，

And mental pleasure in the third concentration, in other places this is called joy,

心不悅名憂，中捨二無別，

Mental displeasure is called sorrow, the middle one is equanimity, the two are not distinguished,

見修無學道，依九立三根。

In the paths of seeing, cultivation and no more learning, three faculties are established on the basis of nine.

論曰：身謂身受，依身起故，即五識相應受。言不悅者是損惱義，於身受內能損惱者名為苦根。所言悅者是攝益義，即身受內能攝益者名為樂根。及第三定心相應受能攝益者亦名樂根，第三定中無有身受，五識無故心悅名樂。即此心悅除第三定，於下三地名為喜根。第三靜慮心悅安靜，離喜貪故唯名樂根。下三地中心悅麁動有喜貪故，唯名喜根。意識相應能損惱受，是心不悅，名曰憂根。中謂非悅非不悅，即是不苦不樂受，此處中受名為捨根。如是捨根為是身受、為是心受？應言通二。何因此二總立一根？此受在身心，同無分別故。在心苦樂多分別生，在身不然，隨境力故。阿羅漢等亦如是生，故此立根，身心各別，捨無分別任運而生，是故立根，身心合一。又苦樂受在身在心為損為益，其相各異，故別立根。捨在身心同無分別，非損非益其相無異，故總立根。意樂喜捨信等五根，如是九根在於三道，如次建立三無漏根。謂在見道依意等九立未知當知根，若在修道即依此九立已知根，在無學道亦依此九立具知根。如是三名因何而立？謂在見道有未曾知當知行轉故，說彼名未知當知。若在修道無未曾知，但為斷除餘隨眠故，即於彼境復數了知，是故說彼名為已知。在無學道知己已知故名為知，有此知者名為具知。或習此知已成性者名為具知，謂得盡智、無生智故如實自知：我遍知苦，不復遍知。乃至廣說。彼所有根名為未知當知根等，如是已釋根體不同，當辯諸門義類差別。此二十二根中幾有漏、幾無漏？頌曰：

The treatise says: "Body" means bodily feeling, because it arises depending on the body; this is feeling associated with the five consciousnesses. "Displeasure" has the meaning of harm and affliction: within bodily feeling, what can harm and afflict is called the faculty of pain. "Pleasure" has the meaning of benefit and embrace: within bodily feeling, what can benefit and embrace is called the faculty of pleasure. Also, feeling associated with the mind of the third concentration that can benefit is also called the faculty of pleasure, because in the third concentration there is no bodily feeling and the five consciousnesses do not exist, so mental pleasure is called pleasure. This same mental pleasure, apart from the third concentration, in the lower three levels is called the faculty of joy. In the third dhyana the mental pleasure is calm, free from the craving of joy, and so is called only the faculty of pleasure. In the lower three levels mental pleasure is coarse and agitated and has craving of joy, and so is called only the faculty of joy. Feeling associated with mental consciousness that can harm and afflict is mental displeasure and is called the faculty of sorrow. "Middle" means neither pleasant nor unpleasant, which is feeling neither painful nor pleasant; here the middle feeling is called the faculty of equanimity. Is this faculty of equanimity bodily feeling or mental feeling? It should be said that it covers both. Why are these two established together as one faculty? Because whether in the body or the mind, this feeling is without discrimination. Pain and pleasure in the mind arise mostly through discrimination, but not so in the body, where they follow the power of the object. Arhats and others also experience them thus, and so the faculties are established separately for body and mind; equanimity arises spontaneously without discrimination, and so the faculty is established as one for body and mind together. Also, pain and pleasure, whether in the body or in the mind, differ in their characteristics as harm or benefit, and so separate faculties are established; equanimity, in body and mind alike, is without discrimination and neither harmful nor beneficial, and its characteristics do not differ, and so it is established as one faculty together. The mind, pleasure, joy, equanimity and the five faculties of faith and so on: these nine faculties exist in the three paths, and the three undefiled faculties are established on them in order. That is, in the path of seeing, on the basis of the nine, mind and so on, the faculty of coming to know what is not yet known is established; in the path of cultivation, on the basis of the same nine, the faculty of final knowledge is established; and in the path of no more learning, on the basis of the same nine, the faculty of one who has fully known is established. Why are these three names given? In the path of seeing there is the practice of what has not been known before and what will be known, and so it is called the faculty of coming to know what is not yet known. In the path of cultivation there is nothing not known before, but in order to sever the remaining latent tendencies one repeatedly knows the same objects, and so it is called the faculty of final knowledge. In the path of no more learning, knowing is already complete and so it is called knowing, and one who has this knowledge is called one who has fully known. Or one in whom this knowing has become a habit is called one who has fully known, since attaining the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising, one knows truly for oneself: I have fully known suffering and need not know it fully again, and so on at length. All the faculties of that kind are called the faculty of coming to know what is not yet known and so on. Having thus explained the different natures of the faculties, we should now discuss the differences among the various categories. Among these twenty-two faculties, how many are with outflows and how many without outflows? The verse says:

唯無漏後三，有色命憂苦，

Only the last three are without outflows, with form, life, sorrow and pain,

當知唯有漏，通二餘九根。

One should know are only with outflows, and the other nine faculties cover both.

論曰：次前所說最後三根，體唯無漏是無垢義。垢之與漏名異體同。七有色根及命憂苦一向有漏。七有色者，眼等五根及女男根，色蘊攝故。意樂喜捨信等五根，此九皆通有漏無漏。有餘師說：信等五根亦唯無漏，故世尊說：若全無此信等五根，我說彼住外異生品。此非誠證，依無漏根說此言故。云何知然？先依無漏信等五根建立諸聖位差別已說此言故。或諸異生略有二種：一內、二外。內謂不斷善根，外謂善根已斷。依外異生作如是說：若全無此信等五根，我說彼住外異生品。又契經說：有諸有情處在世間，或生或長，有上中下諸根差別。是佛猶未轉法輪時，故知信等亦通有漏。又世尊說：我若於此信等五根，未如實知是集沒味過患出離，未能超此天人世間及魔梵等，乃至未能證得無上正等菩提。乃至廣說。非無漏法可作如是品類觀察故，信等五根通有漏無漏。如是已說有漏無漏。二十二根中幾是異熟、幾非異熟？頌曰：

The treatise says: The last three faculties mentioned just before are by nature only without outflows, that is, without defilement; defilement and outflow are different names for the same substance. The seven faculties with form, and life, sorrow and pain, are invariably with outflows. The seven with form are the five faculties, eye and so on, and the female and male faculties, because they are included in the aggregate of form. The mind, pleasure, joy, equanimity and the five of faith and so on: these nine all cover both with outflows and without outflows. Some other masters say: the five faculties of faith and so on are also only without outflows, because the World-Honored One said: If one entirely lacks these five faculties of faith and so on, I say that person dwells in the class of outsider ordinary beings. This is not a true proof, because this was said in reference to the undefiled faculties. How do we know this? Because it was said after having already established the differences of noble stages on the basis of the undefiled faculties of faith and so on. Or ordinary beings are roughly of two kinds: inner and outer. Inner are those who have not severed their good roots; outer are those whose good roots have been severed. It was said in reference to outer ordinary beings: If one entirely lacks these five faculties of faith and so on, I say that person dwells in the class of outsider ordinary beings. Also the sutra says: There are sentient beings in the world, born or growing, with differences of superior, middling and inferior faculties. This was when the Buddha had not yet turned the wheel of the Dharma, and so one knows that faith and so on also cover both. Again the World-Honored One said: If I had not truly known the arising, the passing away, the taste, the danger and the escape of these five faculties of faith and so on, I would not have been able to transcend this world of gods and humans, with Mara and Brahma and so on, up to not having been able to attain supreme perfect enlightenment, and so on at length. Since undefiled dharmas cannot be observed in this way according to their kinds, the five faculties of faith and so on cover both with outflows and without outflows. Having thus explained with outflows and without outflows, among the twenty-two faculties, how many are results of maturation and how many are not? The verse says:

命唯是異熟，憂及後八非，

Life is only a result of maturation, sorrow and the last eight are not,

色意餘四受，一一皆通二。

Form, mind and the other four feelings each cover both.

論曰：唯一命根定是異熟。若如是者，諸阿羅漢留多壽行此即命根，如是命根誰之異熟？如本論說：云何苾芻留多壽行？謂阿羅漢成就神通得心自在。若於僧眾、若於別人以諸命緣衣缽等物隨分佈施，施已發願，即入第四邊際靜慮，從定起已心念口言：諸我能感富異熟業，願皆轉招壽異熟果。時彼能感富異熟業，則皆轉招壽異熟果。復有欲令引取宿業殘異熟果。彼說前生曾所受業有殘異熟，由今所修邊際定力引取受用。云何苾芻捨多壽行？謂阿羅漢成就神通得心自在，於僧眾等如前佈施，施已發願，即入第四邊際靜慮，從定起已心念口言：諸我能感壽異熟業，願皆轉招富異熟果。時彼能感壽異熟業，則皆轉招富異熟果。尊者妙音作如是說：彼起第四邊際定力，引色界大種令身中現前，而彼大種或順壽行或違壽行，由此因緣或留壽行或捨壽行。應如是說，彼阿羅漢由此自在三摩地力，轉去曾得宿業所生諸根大種住時勢分，引取未曾定力所起諸根大種住時勢分，故此命根非是異熟，所餘一切皆是異熟。因論生論，彼阿羅漢有何因緣留多壽行？謂為利益安樂他故，或為聖教久住世故，觀知自身壽行將盡，觀他無此二種堪能。復何因緣捨多壽行？彼阿羅漢自觀住世於他利益安樂事少，或為病等苦逼自身。如有頌言：

The treatise says: Only the one faculty of life is definitely a result of maturation. If so, when arhats retain a long life-span, that is, the life faculty, whose result of maturation is this life faculty? As the original treatise says: What is a bhikshu retaining a long life-span? It is an arhat who has attained spiritual powers and mastery of mind. If he donates, to the Sangha or to individuals, clothing, bowls and other things as supports of life according to what is proper, and having donated makes a vow, and then enters the fourth boundary dhyana, then on arising from concentration he thinks in his mind and says: May all the karma of mine that could produce wealth as a result of maturation be transformed to produce the result of maturation of life-span. At that time that karma which could produce wealth is entirely transformed into the result of maturation of life-span. Others also want to draw in the remaining result of maturation of former karma. They say that karma experienced in a previous life has remaining maturation, and by the power of the boundary concentration cultivated now, it is drawn in and experienced. What is a bhikshu relinquishing a long life-span? It is an arhat who has attained spiritual powers and mastery of mind, who donates as before to the Sangha and others, and having donated makes a vow, and then enters the fourth boundary dhyana, then on arising from concentration he thinks in his mind and says: May all the karma of mine that could produce life-span as a result of maturation be transformed to produce the result of maturation of wealth. At that time that karma which could produce life-span is entirely transformed into the result of maturation of wealth. The Venerable Subhuti, in the Sanskrit tradition, says this: By the power of the fourth boundary concentration he draws forth the great elements of the form realm and makes them appear in the body, and those great elements either accord with or oppose the life formations, and by this cause he either retains or relinquishes the life formations. One should say instead that the arhat, by the power of this sovereign samadhi, transforms and removes the potential duration of the faculties and great elements produced by former karma that he had obtained, and draws in the potential duration of the faculties and great elements arisen from the power of concentration not previously obtained; therefore this life faculty is not a result of maturation, whereas all the rest are results of maturation. As a digression: for what reason does that arhat retain a long life-span? It is for the benefit and happiness of others, or for the long abiding of the noble teaching in the world, when he observes that his own life-span is about to end and that others do not have the capacity for these two. Again, for what reason does he relinquish a long life-span? That arhat observes that his remaining in the world brings little benefit and happiness to others, or he is oppressed by illness and other sufferings in his own body. As a verse says:

梵行妙成立，聖道已善修，

The holy life is wonderfully accomplished, the noble path is well cultivated,

壽盡時歡喜，猶如捨眾病。

At the end of life he rejoices, as if rid of many illnesses.

此中應知，依何處所誰能如是留捨壽行？謂三洲人女男相續，不時解脫得邊際定諸阿羅漢，由彼身中有自在定無煩惱故。經說：世尊留多命行、捨多壽行。命壽何別？有言：無別。如本論言：云何命根？謂三界壽。有餘師說：先世業果名為壽行，現在業果名為命行。有說：由此眾同分住名為壽行，由此暫住名為命行。多言為顯留捨多念，命行壽行非一剎那，命行壽行有留捨故。有說：此言為遮有一命壽實體經多時住。有說：此言為顯無一實命壽體，但於多行假立如是命壽二名。若謂不然，不應言行。世尊何故捨多壽行留多命行？為顯於死得自在故捨多壽行，為顯於活得自在故留多命行。唯留三月不增減者，越此更無所化事故，減此利生不究竟故。又為成立先自稱言我：善修行四神足故，欲住一劫或一劫餘，如心所期則便能住。毘婆沙師作如是說：顯今能伏蘊死二魔。世尊先於菩提樹下，已伏天魔煩惱魔故。傍論已竟，正論應辯。憂根及後信等八根皆非異熟，是有記故，餘皆通二。義準已成。謂七色意根除憂餘四受，十二一一皆通二類。七有色根若所長養則非異熟，餘皆異熟。意及四受若善染汙。若威儀路及工巧處並能變化，隨其所應亦非異熟，餘皆異熟。若說憂根非異熟者，此經所說當云何通？如契經言。：有三種業：順喜受業、順憂受業、順捨受業。依受相應言順無過，謂業與憂相應故名順憂受業，如觸與樂相應說名順樂受觸。若爾，順喜順捨受業亦應如是，一經說故。隨汝所欲，於我無違，異熟相應理皆無失，無逃難處。作此通經理實何因？憂非異熟，以憂分別差別所生，止息亦然；異熟不爾。若爾，喜根應非異熟，亦由分別生及止息故。若許憂根是異熟者，造無間業已因即生憂，此業爾時應名果已熟。亦應如是徵難喜根，若許喜根是異熟者，造勝福業已因即生喜，此業爾時應名果已熟。

(The treatise continues:) Here it should be known: relying on what place, and who, can thus retain or relinquish the life-formations? Namely the arhats of the three continents, male or female, in a continuous series, who are liberated at will and have attained the concentration of the limit, because in their bodies there is concentration that is self-mastered and without afflictions. The sutra says: the World-Honored One retained many life-formations and relinquished many vital-formations. What is the difference between life and vital span? Some say: no difference, as the original treatise says: What is the life faculty? It is the vital span of the three realms. Some other masters say: the fruit of past karma is called vital-formations, and the fruit of present karma is called life-formations. Some say: that by which a group of the same class abides is called vital-formations, and that by which one abides for a moment is called life-formations. The word "many" shows that he retained and relinquished over many moments; the life-formations and vital-formations are not a single instant, because they can be retained and relinquished. Some say that this word is meant to refute the view that a single real substance of life and vital span abides over a long time. Some say that this word shows that there is no single real substance of life and vital span, and that the two names life and vital span are provisionally established only over many formations. If this were not so, one should not say "formations." Why did the World-Honored One relinquish many vital-formations and retain many life-formations? To show mastery over death he relinquished many vital-formations, and to show mastery over living he retained many life-formations. He retained them for only three months, neither more nor less, because beyond that there was nothing further to convert, and because a shorter span would not have completed the benefit of beings. Moreover, to establish what he had earlier declared, "I have well cultivated the four bases of supernormal power, and so if I wish to live for a kalpa or beyond a kalpa, I can abide as my mind intends." The Vaibhashika masters say: this shows that he was now able to subdue the demons of the aggregates and of death. The World-Honored One had already subdued the demon of the heavens and the demon of afflictions beneath the Bodhi tree. The digression is finished; the main discussion should now be resolved. The faculty of sorrow and the last eight faculties, beginning with faith, are not results of maturation, because they are with designation, while the others are of both kinds. This is established by implication: the seven material faculties, the mind faculty, and the four feelings other than sorrow, these twelve, are each of both kinds. Of the seven material faculties, those that are nourished are not results of maturation, and the others are all results of maturation. As for the mind faculty and the four feelings, if they are wholesome or defiled, or are postures, or are in the crafts-bases, or are able to transform, then as appropriate they are also not results of maturation, and the others are all results of maturation. If the faculty of sorrow is said not to be a result of maturation, how is this sutra passage to be reconciled? As the sutra says: There are three kinds of karma: karma that leads to joyful feeling, karma that leads to sorrowful feeling, and karma that leads to neutral feeling. It is said to lead to feeling because of association with feeling, and there is no fault: karma associated with sorrow is called karma leading to sorrow, just as contact associated with pleasure is called contact leading to pleasure. If so, karma leading to joy and karma leading to neutral feeling should likewise be so, since they are in one sutra. As you wish; this does not contradict me, and there is no fault in either result of maturation or association; there is no way to escape the difficulty. What is the real reason for giving this reconciliation of the sutra? Sorrow is not a result of maturation, because it is born from the differences of conceptual discrimination, and it also ceases through them; a result of maturation is not so. If so, the faculty of joy would not be a result of maturation either, because it too arises from and ceases through conceptual discrimination. If one allowed that the faculty of sorrow is a result of maturation, then when one commits an immediate karma and sorrow arises right after the cause, that karma would at that moment be said to have its fruit already matured. One could likewise press the same objection against the faculty of joy: if one allowed that the faculty of joy is a result of maturation, then when one performs a supreme meritorious deed and joy arises right after the cause, that deed would at that moment be said to have its fruit already matured.

毘婆沙師鹹作是說：已離欲者無憂根故，異熟不然，故非異熟。若爾，應說離欲有情異熟喜根。何相知有？隨彼有相此相亦然，謂善喜根此位容有，無記異熟應類非無。於此位中憂一切種無容有故定非異熟，眼等八根若在善趣是善異熟，若在惡趣是惡異熟，意根隨在善趣惡趣是俱異熟，喜樂捨根隨在何趣是善異熟，苦根隨在善趣惡趣是惡異熟。於善趣中有二形者唯根處所，不善業招善趣色根，善業引故。如是已說是異熟等。二十二根中幾有異熟、幾無異熟？頌曰：

The Vaibhashika masters all say this: because one who has become free of desire has no faculty of sorrow, it is not a result of maturation, so it is not a result of maturation. If so, it should be said that a being free of desire has a faculty of joy that is a result of maturation. How is its existence known? Where that sign exists, this sign is likewise; the wholesome faculty of joy may exist in that state, and a neutral result of maturation of that class is not absent. In that state sorrow in every kind cannot exist, and so it is certainly not a result of maturation. The eight faculties beginning with eye are wholesome results of maturation if in a good destiny, and bad results of maturation if in a bad destiny. The mind faculty, in either good or bad destiny, is a result of maturation of both. The faculties of joy, pleasure, and neutral feeling are wholesome results of maturation in whatever destiny. The faculty of pain is a bad result of maturation in either good or bad destiny. In a good destiny, in the case of a being with two sexes, it is only the location of the faculty; the form-faculty that bad karma brings about in a good destiny is drawn forth by good karma. Thus results of maturation and the rest have been explained. Of the twenty-two faculties, how many have results of maturation and how many do not? The verse says:

憂定有異熟，前八後三無，

Sorrow certainly has a result of maturation; the first eight and the last three do not;

意餘受信等，一一皆通二。

the mind, the other feelings, faith and the rest, each of them is of both kinds.

論曰：如前所諍，憂根當知定有異熟，依唯越義頌說定聲，謂顯憂根唯有異熟兼具二義故越次說。具二義者，憂非無記，強思起故；亦非無漏，唯散地故。由此越次先說，憂根定有異熟。眼等前八及最後三定無異熟，八無記故，三無漏故，餘皆通二。義準已成，謂意根餘四受信等言等取精進等四根，此十一一皆通二類。意樂喜捨若不善善有漏有異熟，若無記無漏無異熟。苦根若善不善有異熟，若無記無異熟。信等五根若有漏有異熟，若無漏無異熟。如是已說有異熟等。二十二根中幾善、幾不善、幾無記？頌曰：

The treatise says: As in the earlier dispute, it should be known that the faculty of sorrow certainly has a result of maturation. Since the verse relies only on the sense of surpassing, it says the word "certainly," showing that the faculty of sorrow has only a result of maturation and, having both senses, is mentioned out of order. Having both senses: sorrow is not neutral, because it arises from strong thought; nor is it without outflows, because it belongs only to the scattered level. Because of this it is mentioned first, out of order: the faculty of sorrow certainly has a result of maturation. The first eight, eye and the rest, and the last three certainly have no result of maturation: the eight because they are neutral, and the three because they are without outflows. The others are all of both kinds. This is established by implication: the mind faculty, the other four feelings, and, with "faith and the rest," the faculties of vigor and the others, these eleven are each of both kinds. The faculties of mind, pleasure, joy, and neutral feeling, if unwholesome or wholesome with outflows, have results of maturation; if neutral or without outflows, they have none. The faculty of pain, if wholesome or unwholesome, has a result of maturation; if neutral, it has none. The five faculties of faith and the rest, if with outflows, have results of maturation; if without outflows, they have none. Thus having results of maturation and the rest have been explained. Of the twenty-two faculties, how many are wholesome, how many unwholesome, and how many neutral? The verse says:

唯善後八根，憂通善不善，

Only the last eight faculties are wholesome; sorrow is both wholesome and unwholesome;

意餘受三種，前八唯無記。

the mind and the other feelings are of three kinds; the first eight are only neutral.

論曰：信等八根一向是善，數次雖居後，乘前故先說。憂根唯通善不善性，意及餘受一一通三，眼等八根唯無記性。如是已說善不善等。二十二根中幾欲界繫、幾色界繫、幾無色界繫？頌曰：

The treatise says: The eight faculties of faith and the rest are always wholesome. Although they come last in the sequence, they are mentioned first, following on the preceding. The faculty of sorrow is only wholesome and unwholesome in nature. The mind and the other feelings are each of three kinds. The eight faculties of eye and the rest are only neutral in nature. Thus wholesome, unwholesome, and the rest have been explained. Of the twenty-two faculties, how many belong to the desire realm, how many to the form realm, and how many to the formless realm? The verse says:

欲色無色界，如次除後三，

In the desire, form, and formless realms, in order, the last three are excluded,

兼女男憂苦，併除色喜樂。

then in addition the female, the male, sorrow, and pain, and then form, joy, and pleasure.

論曰：欲界除後三無漏根，由彼三根唯不繫故，準知欲界繫唯有十九根。色界如前，除三無漏兼除男、女、憂、苦四根，準知十五根亦通色界繫。除女男者，色界已離婬欲法故、由女男根身醜陋故。若爾，何故說彼為男？於何處說？契經中說。如契經言：無處無容女身為梵，有處有容男身為梵。別有男相，謂欲界中男身所有。無苦根者，身淨妙故，又彼無有不善法故。無憂根者，由奢摩他潤相續故，又彼定無惱害事故。無色如前，除三無漏、女、男、憂、苦，併除五色及喜、樂根，準知餘八根通無色界繫，謂意、命、捨、信等五根。如是已說欲界繫等。二十二根中幾見所斷、幾修所斷、幾非所斷？頌曰：

The treatise says: In the desire realm the last three faculties without outflows are excluded, because those three faculties belong to no realm; thus it should be known that only nineteen faculties belong to the desire realm. In the form realm, as before, the three faculties without outflows are excluded, and the four faculties of male, female, sorrow, and pain are also excluded; thus it should be known that fifteen faculties also belong to the form realm. The female and male are excluded because in the form realm sexual desire has been left behind, and because the bodies would be ugly through the female and male faculties. If so, why is that being called male, and where is this said? It is said in the sutras. As a sutra says: There is no place and no possibility that a female body could be a Brahma; there is a place and a possibility that a male body could be a Brahma. There is another male characteristic, which is that of the male body in the desire realm. There is no faculty of pain, because the body is pure and fine, and because there are no unwholesome dharmas there. There is no faculty of sorrow, because the mental series is moistened by shamatha, and because there is certainly no affliction or harm there. The formless realm is as before, excluding the three without outflows, female, male, sorrow, and pain, and also the five material faculties and the faculties of joy and pleasure; thus it should be known that the remaining eight faculties belong to the formless realm, namely mind, life, neutral feeling, and the five of faith and the rest. Thus belonging to the desire realm and the rest have been explained. Of the twenty-two faculties, how many are cut off by seeing, how many by cultivation, and how many are not cut off? The verse says:

意三受通三，憂見修所斷，

The mind and three feelings are of all three; sorrow is cut off by seeing and by cultivation;

九唯修所斷，五修非三非。

nine are cut off only by cultivation; five are cut off by cultivation or not cut off; three are not cut off.

論曰：意、喜、樂、捨一一通三，皆通見、修、非所斷故。憂根唯通見修所斷，非無漏故。七色、命、苦唯修所斷，不染汙故、非六生故、皆有漏故。信等五根，或修所斷、或非所斷，非染汙故、皆通有漏及無漏故。最後三根唯非所斷，皆無漏故、非無過法是所斷故。已說諸門義類差別。何界初得幾異熟根？頌曰：

The treatise says: The mind, joy, pleasure, and neutral feeling are each of all three, since all can be cut off by seeing, by cultivation, or not cut off. The faculty of sorrow is of the two only, cut off by seeing or by cultivation, because it is not without outflows. The seven material faculties, life, and pain are cut off by cultivation only, because they are not defiled, are not born from the six, and are all with outflows. The five faculties of faith and the rest are either cut off by cultivation or not cut off, because they are not defiled and are of both kinds, with and without outflows. The last three faculties are only not cut off, because they are all without outflows, and because no dharma without faults is to be cut off. The differences of the various categories have been explained. In which realm, at first, are how many faculties that are results of maturation obtained? The verse says:

欲胎卵濕生，初得二異熟，

In the desire realm, for womb-born, egg-born, and moisture-born, two faculties that are results of maturation are first obtained;

化生六七八，色六上唯命。

for the spontaneously born, six, seven, or eight; in the form realm, six; above that, only life.

論曰：欲胎、卵、濕生初受生位，唯得身與命二異熟根，由此三生根漸起故。彼何不得意、捨二根？此續生時定染汙故。化生初位得六七八，謂無形者初得六根，如劫初時。何等為六？所謂眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、命。若一形者初得七根，如諸天等。若二形者初得八根。豈有二形受化生者？惡趣容有二形化生。說欲界中初得根已。今次當說色無色界。欲界欲勝故但言欲，色界色勝故但言色。契經亦言：寂靜解脫，過色無色。色界初得六異熟根，如欲化生無形者說。上唯命者，謂無色界定勝生勝，故說上言。無色界中最初所得異熟根者，唯命非餘。說異熟根最初得已。何界死位幾根後滅？頌曰：

The treatise says: In the desire realm, for those born from a womb, an egg, or moisture, at the first moment of taking birth only the two faculties that are results of maturation, body and life, are obtained, because from these three births the faculties arise gradually. Why are the faculties of mind and neutral feeling not obtained then? Because at rebirth the mind is certainly defiled. For the spontaneously born, six, seven, or eight are first obtained: those with no sex first obtain six faculties, as at the beginning of the kalpa. Which six? Eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and life. Those of one sex first obtain seven faculties, as the devas and others do. Those of two sexes first obtain eight faculties. Are there beings of two sexes who take spontaneous birth? In the bad destinies two-sexed spontaneous birth is possible. What is first obtained in the desire realm has now been told; the form and formless realms should now be told. In the desire realm desire is dominant, so only desire is mentioned; in the form realm form is dominant, so only form is mentioned. The sutra also says: calm liberation passes beyond form and the formless. In the form realm six faculties that are results of maturation are first obtained, as is said for the spontaneously born without sex in the desire realm. "Above that, only life" means that the formless realm is superior in concentration and in birth, and so the word "above" is used. In the formless realm the faculty that is first obtained as a result of maturation is only life and no other. The first obtaining of the faculties that are results of maturation has been told. In which realm, at the moment of death, how many faculties cease last? The verse says:

正死滅諸根，無色三色八，

At the moment of death the faculties cease: in the formless realm three, in the form realm eight,

欲頓十九八，漸四善增五。

in the desire realm, in sudden death ten, nine, or eight; in gradual death four; with good thought, five more.

論曰：在無色界將命終時，命、意、捨三於最後滅。若在色界將命終時，即前三根及眼等五，如是八種於最後滅。一切化生必具諸根而生死故。若在欲界頓命終時，十九八根於最後滅，謂二形者後滅十根，即女男根並前八種。若一形者後滅九根，於女男中隨除一種。若無形者後滅八根，謂無女男，唯有前八。如是所說依頓命終。若漸命終後唯捨四，謂在欲界漸命終時，身、命、意、捨於最後滅，此四必無前後滅義。如是所說，應知但依染無記心而命終者。若在三界善心死時，信等五根必皆具有，故於前說一切位中其數皆應加信等五，謂於無色增至八根，乃至欲界漸終至九，中間多少如理應知。分別根中一切根法皆應思擇，二十二根幾能證得何沙門果？頌曰：

The treatise says: When one is about to die in the formless realm, life, mind, and neutral feeling, these three, cease last. When one is about to die in the form realm, those same three faculties together with the five, eye and the rest, these eight, cease last, because all spontaneously born beings are born and die with all their faculties. When one dies suddenly in the desire realm, ten, nine, or eight faculties cease last: for those of two sexes, ten faculties cease last, namely the female and male faculties together with the former eight; for those of one sex, nine faculties cease last, one of female or male being excluded; for those with no sex, eight faculties cease last, namely without female and male, only the former eight. This is said in terms of sudden death. If death is gradual, only four are relinquished at the end: when one dies gradually in the desire realm, body, life, mind, and neutral feeling cease last, and for these four there is certainly no earlier or later ceasing. It should be known that this is said only of those who die with a defiled or neutral mind. If one dies with a wholesome mind in any of the three realms, the five faculties of faith and the rest are necessarily all present, and so in every state described above the number should be increased by the five faculties of faith and the rest: in the formless realm it reaches eight, and in the desire realm gradual death reaches nine, and the intermediate numbers should be understood accordingly. In the discussion of the faculties, all the dharmas of the faculties should be examined: of the twenty-two faculties, how many can realize which fruits of the ascetic? The verse says:

九得邊二果，七八九中二，

Nine obtain the two end fruits; seven, eight, or nine for the two middle ones;

十一阿羅漢，依一容有說。

eleven for the arhat; this is said for what is possible in one body.

論曰：邊謂預流、阿羅漢果，於沙門果居初後故。中謂一來及不還果，此觀初後在中間故。初預流果由九根得，謂意及捨、信等五根、未知當知、已知為九。未知根在無間道，已知根在解脫道，此二相資得最初果。如其次第，於離繫得能為引因，依因性故。阿羅漢果亦九根得，謂意、信等五、已知、具知，及喜、樂、捨中隨一為九。已知根在無間道，具知根在解脫道，此二相資得最後果。如其次第，於離繫得能為引因，依因性故。中間二果，隨其所應，各為七八九根所得。所以者何？且一來果次第證者，依世間道由七根得，謂意及捨、信等五根；依出世道由八根得，謂即前七根、已知根第八。倍離欲貪超越證者，如預流果由九根得；若不還果次第證者，依世間道由七根得，依出世道由八根得。如前次第得一來果。全離欲貪超越證者，由九根得，如前超越得一來果。總說雖然而有差別，謂此依地有差別故，樂、喜、捨中可隨取一。前果超越唯一捨根。又次第證不還果者，若於第九解脫道中入根本地，依世間道由八根得。彼無間道捨受相應，解脫道中復有喜受，此二相資得第三果。於離繫得二因如前，依出世道由九根得，八根如前，已知第九，無間解脫此俱有故。豈不根本阿毘達磨問：由幾根得阿羅漢？答：十一根。云何乃言由九根得？實得第四，但由九根。而本論言十一根者，依一身中容有故說。謂容有一補特伽羅從無學位數數退已，由樂、喜、捨隨一現前，數復證得阿羅漢果。由斯本論說十一根，然無一時三受俱起，是故今說定由九根。於不還果中何不如是說？以無樂根證不還果，而於後時得有退義。亦無退已，由樂復得，非先離欲超證第三有還退義。此離欲果二道所得，極堅牢故。今應思擇，成就何根？彼諸根中幾定成就？頌曰：

The treatise says: The ends are the fruit of stream-entry and the fruit of arhat, since they are first and last among the fruits of the ascetic. The middle ones are the fruit of once-returner and the fruit of non-returner, since these are seen as between the first and the last. The first fruit, stream-entry, is obtained by nine faculties, namely mind, neutral feeling, the five of faith and the rest, the faculty of coming to know what is not yet known, and the faculty of having known: nine. The faculty of coming to know what is not yet known is on the path of no interval, and the faculty of having known is on the path of liberation; these two mutually support each other to obtain the first fruit. In this order, they are the leading cause and the supporting cause for attaining disconnection. The fruit of arhat is also obtained by nine faculties, namely mind, the five of faith and the rest, the faculty of having known, the faculty of complete knowledge, and any one of joy, pleasure, and neutral feeling: nine. The faculty of having known is on the path of no interval, and the faculty of complete knowledge is on the path of liberation; these two mutually support each other to obtain the last fruit. In this order, they are the leading cause and the supporting cause for attaining disconnection. The two middle fruits, as appropriate, are each obtained by seven, eight, or nine faculties. Why? First, the once-returner who realizes the fruit in sequence, relying on the worldly path, obtains it by seven faculties, namely mind, neutral feeling, and the five of faith and the rest; relying on the supramundane path, he obtains it by eight faculties, namely the former seven and the faculty of having known as the eighth. One who realizes it by leaping over, having reduced desire and greed, obtains it by nine faculties, as in the fruit of stream-entry. As for the non-returner who realizes the fruit in sequence, relying on the worldly path he obtains it by seven faculties, and relying on the supramundane path by eight faculties, as with the once-returner in the sequence given before. One who has wholly left desire and greed and realizes it by leaping over obtains it by nine faculties, as before in obtaining the once-returner's fruit by leaping over. Although the general statement is thus, there are differences: this is because it depends on differences of ground, so any one of pleasure, joy, and neutral feeling may be taken. For the earlier fruit by leaping over, there is only the faculty of neutral feeling. Moreover, if one realizes the fruit of non-returner in sequence and enters the basic ground at the ninth path of liberation, relying on the worldly path he obtains it by eight faculties. On the path of no interval of that one there is association with neutral feeling, and on the path of liberation there is also joy; these two mutually support each other to obtain the third fruit. The two causes for attaining disconnection are as before. Relying on the supramundane path he obtains it by nine faculties: eight as before, and the faculty of having known as the ninth, since the path of no interval and the path of liberation are both present there together. Does not the original Abhidharma ask: By how many faculties is arhatship obtained? And answer: By eleven faculties? How then is it said just now to be obtained by nine faculties? The one who really obtains the fourth fruit does so only by nine faculties. But the original treatise says eleven faculties, speaking of what is possible in a single body: namely it is possible that one individual (a sentient being), having repeatedly fallen back from the stage of the one beyond training, and with any one of pleasure, joy, and neutral feeling being present, repeatedly realizes the fruit of arhat again. For this reason the original treatise says eleven faculties; yet the three feelings never arise together at one time, and so it is now said that it is certainly obtained by nine faculties. Why is it not said likewise of the fruit of non-returner? Because one who realizes the fruit of non-returner without the faculty of pleasure has the meaning of falling back at a later time. Nor is there falling back, then attaining again through pleasure, since for one who has first left desire and leapt to realize the third fruit there is no meaning of falling back again to an existence. For this fruit of leaving desire, being obtained by the two paths, is extremely firm. Now it should be examined: which faculties does one possess? Among those faculties, how many does one necessarily possess? The verse says:

成就命意捨，各定成就三，

One who possesses life, mind, and neutral feeling certainly possesses three each,

若成就樂身，各定成就四，

if one possesses pleasure or body, one certainly possesses four each,

成眼等及喜，各定成五根，

one who possesses eye and the rest, or joy, certainly possesses five faculties each,

若成就苦根，彼定成就七，

if one possesses the faculty of pain, one certainly possesses seven,

若成女男憂，信等各成八，

if one possesses female, male, or sorrow, or faith and the rest, one possesses eight each,

二無漏十一，初無漏十三。

the two without outflows, eleven; the first without outflows, thirteen.

論曰：命、意、捨中隨成就一，彼定成就如是三根，非此三中隨有所闕可有成就。所餘根者，除此三根餘皆不定，謂或成就或不成就。此中眼耳鼻舌四根，生無色界定不成就，若生欲界未得已失亦不成就。身根，唯有生無色界定不成就。女男二根，生上二界定不成就，若生欲界未得已失亦不成就。樂根，異生生第四定及無色界定不成就。喜根，異生生三四定及無色界定不成就。苦根，若生色無色界定不成就。憂根，一切離欲貪者定不成就。信等五根，善根斷者定不成就。初無漏根，一切異生及已住果定不成就。次無漏根，一切異生見道無學定不成就。後無漏根，一切異生及有學位定不成就。於非遮位應知如前，所說諸根皆定成就。若成樂根定成就四，謂命、意、捨及此樂根。若成身根亦定成四，謂命、意、捨及此身根。若成眼根定成就五，謂命、意、捨、身根、眼根。耳鼻舌根應知亦五，前四如眼，第五自根。若成喜根亦定成五，謂命、意、捨、樂根、喜根。第二靜慮地生未得第三靜慮，捨下未得上，此成何樂根？當言成就第三靜慮染汙樂根，餘未得故。若成苦根定成就七，謂身、命、意、四受除憂。若成女根定成就八，七如苦說，第八女根。若成男根亦定成八，七如苦說，第八男根。若成憂根亦定成八，七如苦說，第八憂根。若成信等亦各成八，謂命、意、捨、信等五根。若成具知根定成就十一，謂命與意、樂、喜、捨根、信等五根及具知根。若成已知根亦定成十一，十根如上及已知根。若成未知根定成就十三，謂身、命、意、苦、樂、喜、捨、信等五根及未知根。諸極少者成就幾根？頌曰：

The treatise says: Whoever possesses any one of life, mind, and neutral feeling certainly possesses these three faculties; it is not possible to possess one of these three while lacking another. For the remaining faculties, apart from these three, none is fixed, in that one may possess them or not possess them. Here the four faculties of eye, ear, nose, and tongue are certainly not possessed by one born in the formless realm, and one born in the desire realm who has not yet obtained them or has lost them also does not possess them. The body faculty is certainly not possessed only by one born in the formless realm. The female and male faculties are certainly not possessed by one born in the two upper realms, and one born in the desire realm who has not yet obtained them or has lost them does not possess them. The faculty of pleasure is certainly not possessed by an ordinary person born in the fourth concentration or in the formless concentrations. The faculty of joy is certainly not possessed by an ordinary person born in the third and fourth concentrations or in the formless concentrations. The faculty of pain is certainly not possessed by one born in the form or formless realm. The faculty of sorrow is certainly not possessed by anyone who has left desire and greed. The five faculties of faith and the rest are certainly not possessed by one whose wholesome roots are cut off. The first faculty without outflows is certainly not possessed by any ordinary person or by one already abiding in the fruit. The second faculty without outflows is certainly not possessed by any ordinary person, anyone on the path of seeing, or one beyond training. The last faculty without outflows is certainly not possessed by any ordinary person or by one in the stage of training. In the states not excluded, as before, it should be known that the faculties mentioned are all certainly possessed. If one possesses the faculty of pleasure, one certainly possesses four, namely life, mind, neutral feeling, and this faculty of pleasure. If one possesses the body faculty, one certainly possesses four, namely life, mind, neutral feeling, and this body faculty. If one possesses the eye faculty, one certainly possesses five, namely life, mind, neutral feeling, the body faculty, and the eye faculty. The ear, nose, and tongue faculties should be known to be five also; the first four are as for the eye, and the fifth is its own faculty. If one possesses the faculty of joy, one certainly possesses five, namely life, mind, neutral feeling, the faculty of pleasure, and the faculty of joy. A being born in the ground of the second concentration who has not yet obtained the third concentration, having abandoned the lower and not yet obtained the upper, possesses which faculty of pleasure? It should be said that he possesses the defiled faculty of pleasure of the third concentration, because the others are not yet obtained. If one possesses the faculty of pain, one certainly possesses seven, namely body, life, mind, and the four feelings except sorrow. If one possesses the female faculty, one certainly possesses eight, the seven as said for pain and the eighth the female faculty. If one possesses the male faculty, one also certainly possesses eight, the seven as said for pain and the eighth the male faculty. If one possesses the faculty of sorrow, one certainly possesses eight, the seven as said for pain and the eighth the faculty of sorrow. If one possesses faith and the rest, one possesses eight each, namely life, mind, neutral feeling, and the five of faith and the rest. If one possesses the faculty of complete knowledge, one certainly possesses eleven, namely life and mind, the faculties of pleasure, joy, and neutral feeling, the five of faith and the rest, and the faculty of complete knowledge. If one possesses the faculty of having known, one also certainly possesses eleven, the ten as above and the faculty of having known. If one possesses the faculty of coming to know what is not yet known, one certainly possesses thirteen, namely body, life, mind, pain, pleasure, joy, neutral feeling, the five of faith and the rest, and the faculty of coming to know what is not yet known. How many faculties does one possess at the very least? The verse says:

極少八無善，成受身命意，

At the least, eight for one without wholesome roots: the feelings, body, life, and mind;

愚生無色界，成善命意捨。

an ignorant ordinary person born in the formless realm possesses the wholesome, life, mind, and neutral feeling.

論曰：已斷善根名為無善。彼若極少成就八根，謂五受根及身、命、意。受謂能受，能領納故。或是受性故名為受，如圓滿性立圓滿名。如斷善根極少成八，愚生無色亦成八根。愚謂異生，未見諦故。何等為八？謂信等五、命、意、捨根。信等五根，一向善故總名為善。若爾，應攝三無漏根。不爾，此中依八根故，又說愚生無色界故。諸極多者成就幾根？頌曰：

The treatise says: One whose wholesome roots have been cut off is called one without wholesome roots. At the very least such a one possesses eight faculties, namely the five feeling-faculties and body, life, and mind. A feeling is that which feels, because it is able to receive and experience; or it is called feeling because it is of the nature of feeling, just as the name "complete" is established for the nature of completeness. As one whose wholesome roots are cut off possesses at the very least eight, so an ignorant ordinary person born in the formless realm also possesses eight faculties. Ignorant means an ordinary person, because he has not yet seen the truths. What are the eight? The five of faith and the rest, and life, mind, and neutral feeling. Because the five faculties of faith and the rest are always wholesome, they are collectively called wholesome. If so, they should include the three faculties without outflows. No, because here it is based on the eight faculties, and because it is said of an ignorant ordinary person born in the formless realm. How many faculties does one possess at the very most? The verse says:

極多成十九，二形除三淨，

At the most, nineteen; for those of two sexes, the three pure ones are excluded;

聖者未離欲，除二淨一形。

for noble ones who have not left desire, the two pure ones and one sex are excluded.

論曰：諸二形者具眼等根，除三無漏成餘十九。無漏名淨，離二縛故。二形必是欲界異生，未離欲貪故有十九。唯此具十九、為更有耶？聖者未離欲亦具十九，謂聖有學未離欲貪，成就極多亦具十九，除二無漏及除一形。若住見道，除已知根及具知根。若住修道，除未知根及具知根。女男二根隨除一種，以諸聖者無二形故。因分別界根非根差別，乘茲廣辯二十二根竟。

The treatise says: Those of two sexes, possessing the faculties of eye and the rest, with the three faculties without outflows excluded, possess the other nineteen. What is without outflows is called pure, because it is free from the two bonds. Those of two sexes are necessarily ordinary persons of the desire realm who have not yet left desire and greed, and so they have nineteen. Is it only these who have nineteen, or is there another? Noble ones who have not left desire also have nineteen, namely noble ones in training who have not left desire and greed; at the most they also possess nineteen, excluding the two without outflows and excluding one sex. If one abides on the path of seeing, the faculty of having known and the faculty of complete knowledge are excluded. If one abides on the path of cultivation, the faculty of coming to know what is not yet known and the faculty of complete knowledge are excluded. Of the female and male faculties one is excluded, because noble ones do not have two sexes. With the distinction of what is and is not a faculty among the elements, the discussion of the twenty-two faculties is thereby finished at length.

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by the Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under imperial decree.

分別根品第二之二

Chapter 2 on the Analysis of the Faculties, Part 2.

今應思擇，一切有為如相不同，生亦各異，為有諸法決定俱生、有定俱生。謂一切法略有五品：一色、二心、三心所、四心不相應行、五無為。無為無生，此中不說。今先辯色決定俱生。頌曰：

Now it should be examined: the conditioned dharmas all differ in their characteristics and also in their arising; are there dharmas that certainly arise together? There are dharmas that certainly arise together. All dharmas are, in brief, of five classes: first, form; second, mind; third, mental factors; fourth, formations dissociated from mind; fifth, the unconditioned. The unconditioned has no arising and is not discussed here. Now we first examine form, which certainly arises together. The verse says:

欲微聚無聲，無根有八事，

In the desire realm an atom-cluster without sound and without a faculty has eight things;

有身根九事，十事有餘根。

with the body faculty, nine things; with another faculty, ten things.

論曰：色聚極細立微聚名，為顯更無細於此者。此在欲界無聲無根，八事俱生隨一不減。云何八事？謂四大種及四所造色、香、味、觸。無聲有根諸極微聚，此俱生事或九或十。有身根聚九事俱生，八事如前，身為第九。有餘根聚十事俱生，九事如前，加眼等一。眼耳鼻舌必不離身，展轉相望處各別故。於前諸聚若有聲生，如次數增九十十一，以有聲處不離根生，謂有執受大種因起。若四大種不相離生，於諸聚中堅濕煖動，云何隨一可得非餘？於彼聚中勢用增者明瞭可得，餘體非無。如覺針鋒與籌合觸，如甞鹽味與麨合味。云何於彼知亦有餘？由有攝熟長持業故。有說：遇緣堅等便有流等相故，如水聚中由極冷故有煖相起，雖不相離而冷用增，如受及聲用有勝劣。有餘師說：於此聚中餘有種子未有體相，故契經說：於木聚中有種種界。界謂種子。如何風中知有顯色？此義可信，不可比知。或所合香現可取故，香與顯色不相離故。前說色界香味並無，故彼無聲有六七八，有聲有七八九俱生。此可準知，故不別說。此中言事為依體說、為依處說？若爾何過？二俱有過。若依體說，八九十等便為太少，由諸微聚必有形色，有多極微共積集故。重性輕性定隨有一，滑性澁性隨一亦然。或處有冷有飢有渴，是則所言有太少過。若依處說，八九十等便為太多，由四大種觸處攝故應說四等，是則所言有太多失。二俱無過。應知此中所言事者，一分依體說，謂所依大種；一分依處說，謂能依造色。若爾，大種事應成多，造色各別，依一四大種故。應知此中依體類說，諸四大種類無別故。何用分別如是語為？語隨欲生，義應思擇。如是已辯色定俱生。餘定俱生今次當辯。頌曰：

The treatise says: A cluster of form that is extremely fine is called an atomic cluster, in order to show that nothing is finer than this. In the desire realm, with no sound and no faculty, it arises with eight things together, none of them lacking. What are the eight things? They are the four great elements and the four derived forms, namely smell, taste, and touch (together with visible form). Atomic clusters without sound but with a faculty have nine or ten things arising together. A cluster with the body faculty has nine things arising together: the eight as before, with the body as the ninth. A cluster with another faculty has ten things arising together: the nine as before, plus one of the eye and so on. The eye, ear, nose, and tongue are never apart from the body, because they are located apart from one another. If sound arises in the earlier clusters, the number increases accordingly to nine, ten, and eleven, because the place of sound does not arise apart from the faculties, namely it arises from a cause that is the great elements that are appropriated. If the four great elements arise inseparably, how, in these clusters, is it that solidity, wetness, warmth, and motion are each perceptible, but not the others? In those clusters, the one whose power is stronger is clearly perceptible, while the substance of the others is not absent. It is like feeling a needle point as touch when it meets the stick, or tasting salt as taste when it meets parched flour. How do we know that the others are also present there? Because of the functions of gathering, ripening, growing, and sustaining. Some say: on meeting conditions, solidity and the like take on characteristics of flowing and so on; as in a cluster of water, because of extreme cold the characteristic of warmth arises, and although they are not separate, the function of cold increases, just as feeling and sound have stronger and weaker functions. Other masters say: in this cluster the others have seeds but not yet the characteristics of substance, and so the sutra says: in a cluster of wood there are various elements; element means seed. How do we know that visible form is present in wind? This meaning can be believed but cannot be inferred. Or because a combined smell is perceptible there, since smell is inseparable from visible form. As was said before, in the form realm there are no smell and taste, so there, without sound there are six, seven, or eight, and with sound seven, eight, or nine arising together. This can be understood by analogy, so it is not stated separately. Here, when it speaks of things, is it speaking by substance or by location? If so, what fault? Both have faults. If by substance, eight, nine, ten, and so on are too few, because atomic clusters necessarily have shape and color, and many ultimate particles are accumulated together. Heaviness or lightness is surely present in one of the two, and smoothness or roughness is likewise one of the two. Or in some places there are cold, hunger, and thirst; so what is said has the fault of being too few. If by location, eight, nine, ten, and so on are too many, because the four great elements are included in the place of touch, so four and so on should be said; so what is said has the fault of being too many. Neither has a fault. It should be understood that what is meant by things here is in part spoken of by substance, namely the great elements that are the support, and in part by location, namely the derived forms that are supported. If so, the things of the great elements should be many, while the derived forms each differ, being supported on one set of four great elements. It should be understood that here it is spoken of by kind of substance, since the kinds of the four great elements are not different. What use is there in making such a distinction in speech? Speech follows desire, and the meaning should be reflected on and weighed. Thus what forms arise together necessarily has been explained. The other things that arise together necessarily will now be explained in turn. The verse says:

心心所必俱，諸行相或得。

Mind and mental factors always arise together; conditioned dharmas may or may not be accompanied by acquisition.

論曰：心與心所必定俱生，隨闕一時餘則不起。諸行即是一切有為，謂色、心、心所、心不相應行。前必俱言流至於此，謂色心等諸行生時，必與有為四相俱起。言或得者，謂諸行內唯有情法與得俱生；餘法不然，是故言或。向言心所，何者是耶？頌曰：

The treatise says: Mind and mental factors necessarily arise together; when one is lacking, the others do not arise. The conditioned dharmas are all that is conditioned, namely form, mind, mental factors, and the conditioned dharmas not associated with mind. The earlier word "necessarily together" flows down to here, meaning that when form, mind, and other conditioned dharmas arise, they necessarily arise together with the four characteristics of the conditioned. "May or may not" means that among conditioned dharmas only those belonging to sentient beings arise together with acquisition; other dharmas are not so, and therefore it is said "or". Mental factors have just been mentioned; what are they? The verse says:

心所且有五，大地法等異。

There are five kinds of mental factors, differing as the great-ground dharmas and the rest.

論曰：諸心所法且有五品。何等為五？一、大地法；二、大善地法；三、大煩惱地法；四、大不善地法；五、小煩惱地法。地謂行處，若此是彼所行處，即說此為彼法地。大法地故名為大地，此中若法大地所有名大地法，謂法恆於一切心有。彼法是何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The mental-factor dharmas are of five groups. What are the five? One, the great-ground dharmas; two, the great wholesome-ground dharmas; three, the great afflicted-ground dharmas; four, the great unwholesome-ground dharmas; five, the minor afflicted-ground dharmas. Ground means the place where something operates; if this is the place where that operates, this is called the ground of that dharma. Because the great dharma ground is called the great ground, here, whatever dharma belongs to the great ground is called a great-ground dharma, namely a dharma that is always present in all minds. What are those dharmas? The verse says:

受想思觸欲，慧念與作意，

Feeling, perception, volition, contact, desire, wisdom, mindfulness, and attention,

勝解三摩地，遍於一切心。

Resolve and samadhi pervade all minds.

論曰：傳說：如是所列十法，諸心剎那和合遍有。此中受謂三種領納：苦、樂、俱非，有差別故。想謂於境取差別相。思謂能令心有造作。觸謂根境識和合生，能有觸對。欲謂希求所作事業。慧謂於法能有簡擇。念謂於緣明記不忘。作意謂能令心警覺。勝解謂能於境印可。三摩地謂心一境性。諸心心所異相微細，一一相續分別尚難，況一剎那俱時而有。有色諸藥色根所取，其味差別尚難了知，況無色法唯覺慧取。如是已說十大地法。大善法地名大善地，此中若法大善地所有名大善地法，謂法恆於諸善心有。彼法是何？頌曰：

The treatise says: It is said that these ten dharmas listed here are present together in every moment of mind. Among them, feeling means three kinds of experiencing, namely suffering, pleasure, and neither, distinguished by difference. Perception means grasping the distinguishing marks of an object. Volition means what enables the mind to create and act. Contact means the faculty, object, and consciousness coming together and arising, able to make contact. Desire means aspiring for the action to be done. Wisdom means being able to discriminate among dharmas. Mindfulness means remembering a condition clearly without forgetting. Attention means what makes the mind alert. Resolve means being able to affirm an object. Samadhi means the mind fixed on one object. The characteristics of minds and mental factors are different and subtle; it is difficult enough to distinguish them one by one in succession, let alone that they exist together in a single moment. With medicines that have form, which the form faculty takes, it is already difficult to know the differences of their flavors, let alone formless dharmas that only the faculty of wisdom grasps. Thus the ten great-ground dharmas have been explained. The great wholesome dharma ground is called the great wholesome ground; here, whatever dharma belongs to the great wholesome ground is called a great wholesome-ground dharma, namely a dharma that is always present in all wholesome minds. What are those dharmas? The verse says:

信及不放逸，輕安捨慚愧，

Faith and diligence in not being heedless, tranquility, equanimity, shame, and conscience,

二根及不害，勤唯遍善心。

The two roots and non-harming, and effort, pervade only wholesome minds.

論曰：如是諸法唯遍善心。此中信者令心澄淨。有說：於諦寶業果中現前忍許故名為信。不放逸者，修諸善法離諸不善法。復何名修？謂此於善專注為性。餘部經中有如是釋。能守護心名不放逸。輕安者謂心堪任性。豈無經亦說有身輕安耶？雖非無說，此如身受應知亦爾，如何可立此為覺支？應知此中身輕安者身堪任性。復如何說此為覺支？能順覺支故無有失。以身輕安能引覺支心輕安故。於餘亦見有是說耶？有，如經說：喜及順喜法名喜覺支。瞋及瞋因緣名瞋恚蓋。正見、正思惟、正勤名慧蘊。思惟及勤雖非慧性，隨順慧故亦得慧名，故身輕安順覺支故得名無失。心平等性、無警覺性說名為捨。如何可說於一心中有警覺性、無警覺性？作意與捨二相應起。豈不前說諸心心所其相微細難可了知。有雖難了，由審推度而復可知。此最難知，謂相違背而不乖反。此有警覺於餘則無，二既懸殊有何乖反？若爾，不應同緣一境，或應一切皆互相應。如是種類所餘諸法，此中應求，如彼理趣，今於此中應知亦爾。慚、愧二種如後當釋。二根者，謂無貪、無瞋，無痴善根慧為性，故前已說在大地法中，不重說為大善地法。言不害者，謂無損惱。勤謂令心勇悍為性。如是已說大善地法。大煩惱法地名大煩惱地，此中若法大煩惱地所有名大煩惱地法，謂法恆於染汙心有。彼法是何？頌曰：

The treatise says: These dharmas pervade only wholesome minds. Among them, faith makes the mind clear and pure. Some say: because one openly accepts and agrees with the truths, the Jewels, karma, and its results, it is called faith. Non-heedlessness means cultivating wholesome dharmas and abandoning unwholesome dharmas. What then is called cultivating? It is the nature of being concentrated on the wholesome. In another sutra it is explained thus: what can guard the mind is called non-heedlessness. Tranquility means the mind's workable quality. Does a sutra not also speak of bodily tranquility? Although it is not that it is not spoken of, this should be understood like bodily feeling; how then can it be established as a factor of awakening? It should be understood that bodily tranquility here means the workable quality of the body. Further, how is this said to be a factor of awakening? Because it accords with the factors of awakening, there is no fault; for bodily tranquility can lead to the mental tranquility that is a factor of awakening. Is this also seen said of others? Yes, as the sutra says: joy and dharmas that accord with joy are called the joy factor of awakening; anger and the causes and conditions of anger are called the hindrance of anger; right view, right thought, and right effort are called the aggregate of wisdom. Although thought and effort are not of the nature of wisdom, they accord with wisdom and therefore also get the name of wisdom; so bodily tranquility, because it accords with the factors of awakening, gets the name without fault. Equanimity of mind, the nature of being even, is called equanimity (upeksha), the quality of not being alert. How can it be said that in a single mind there is a quality of being alert and a quality of not being alert? Attention and equanimity arise together in association. Was it not said earlier that the characteristics of minds and mental factors are subtle and difficult to know? Although it is difficult to know, careful investigation can make it knowable. What is most difficult to know is what is contradictory yet not opposed. Here there is alertness, and in the others there is none; since the two are so far apart, how could they be opposed? If so, they should not share the same object, or else all should be associated with one another. For all other dharmas of such kinds, one should seek by this reasoning; as with that reasoning, here too it should be understood likewise. Shame and conscience will be explained later. The two roots are non-greed and non-hatred; the wholesome root of non-delusion has wisdom as its nature, so it was already included among the great-ground dharmas and is not repeated as a great wholesome-ground dharma. Non-harming means the absence of injury and vexation. Effort means making the mind courageous and bold. Thus the great wholesome-ground dharmas have been explained. The great afflicted dharma ground is called the great afflicted ground; here, whatever dharma belongs to the great afflicted ground is called a great afflicted-ground dharma, namely a dharma that is always present in defiled minds. What are those dharmas? The verse says:

痴逸怠不信，惛掉恆唯染。

Delusion, heedlessness, laziness, unbelief, torpor, and restlessness are always only defiled.

論曰：此中痴者所謂愚痴，即是無明無智無顯。逸謂放逸，不修諸善，是修諸善所對治法。怠謂懈怠，心不勇悍，是前所說勤所對治。不信者謂心不澄淨，是前所說信所對治。惛謂惛沈。對法中說：云何惛沈？謂身重性、心重性，身無堪任性、心無堪任性，身惛沈性、心惛沈性，是名惛沈。此是心所。如何名身？如身受言，故亦無失。掉謂掉舉，令心不靜。唯有如是六種，名大煩惱地法。豈不根本阿毘達磨中說有十種大煩惱地法，又於彼論不說惛沈。何者十？謂不信、懈怠、失念、心亂、無明、不正知、非理作意、邪勝解、掉舉、放逸。天愛！汝今但知言，至不閑意旨。意旨者何？謂失念、心亂、不正知、非理作意、邪勝解，已說彼在大地法中，不應重立為大煩惱地法。如無痴善根慧為體故，非大善地法，彼亦應爾。即染汙念名為失念，染汙等持名為心亂，諸染汙慧名不正知，染汙作意勝解名為非理作意及邪勝解故說。若是大地法亦大煩惱地法耶？應作四句。第一句，謂受、想、思、觸、欲。第二句，謂不信、懈怠、無明、掉舉、放逸。第三句，謂如前說念等五法。第四句，謂除前相。有執邪等持非即是心亂，彼作四句與此不同。又許惛沈通與一切煩惱相應，不說在大煩惱地法。於誰有過？有作是言：應說在此，而不說者順等持故。彼謂諸有惛沈行者速發等持，非掉舉行。誰惛沈行非掉舉行？誰掉舉行非惛沈行？此二未嘗不俱行故。雖爾，應知隨增說行。雖知說行隨用偏增，而依有體建立地法，故此地法唯六義成，此唯遍染心俱起非餘故。如是已說大煩惱地法。大不善法地名大不善地，此中若法大不善地所有名大不善地法，謂法恆於不善心有。彼法是何？頌曰。

The treatise says: Here delusion means ignorance, which is non-wisdom and non-understanding. Heedlessness means not cultivating wholesome dharmas; it is the antidote to the cultivation of wholesome dharmas. Laziness means idleness, a mind that is not courageous; it is the antidote to effort mentioned before. Unbelief means a mind that is not clear and pure; it is the antidote to faith mentioned before. Torpor means drowsiness. The Abhidharma says: what is drowsiness? It is heaviness of body and heaviness of mind, unworkableness of body and unworkableness of mind, drowsiness of body and drowsiness of mind; this is called drowsiness. This is a mental factor. How is it called of the body? As in the expression bodily feeling, there is no fault. Restlessness means agitation, making the mind not still. There are only these six, called great afflicted-ground dharmas. Does the root Abhidharma not say there are ten great afflicted-ground dharmas, while that treatise does not mention torpor? What are the ten? They are unbelief, laziness, loss of mindfulness, distraction, ignorance, lack of clear awareness, improper attention, wrong resolve, restlessness, and heedlessness. Beloved of the gods! You only know the words and have not understood the intent. What is the intent? Loss of mindfulness, distraction, lack of clear awareness, improper attention, and wrong resolve have already been stated among the great-ground dharmas and should not be established again as great afflicted-ground dharmas. Just as, because non-delusion is the wholesome root with wisdom as its substance, it is not a great wholesome-ground dharma, so those should be likewise. Defiled mindfulness is called loss of mindfulness, defiled samadhi is called distraction, all defiled wisdom is called lack of clear awareness, and defiled attention and resolve are called improper attention and wrong resolve; so it is said. If something is a great-ground dharma, is it also a great afflicted-ground dharma? A four-way alternative should be made. First, feeling, perception, volition, contact, and desire. Second, unbelief, laziness, ignorance, restlessness, and heedlessness. Third, the five dharmas such as mindfulness as stated above. Fourth, whatever is other than the preceding. Some hold that wrong samadhi is not itself distraction, and their four-way alternative differs from this one. Further, torpor is admitted to be associated with all afflictions, yet is not stated among the great afflicted-ground dharmas. Whose fault is this? Some say: it should be stated here, but it is not stated because it accords with samadhi. They say that those who practice torpor quickly give rise to samadhi, while those who practice restlessness do not. Whose practice is torpor and not restlessness? Whose practice is restlessness and not torpor? These two have never failed to operate together. Even so, it should be understood that practice is spoken of according to which is stronger. Although one knows that what is said of practice follows the preponderance of function, the ground dharmas are established in dependence on what has substance; therefore this ground has just six items, since they arise together only with all defiled minds and not otherwise. Thus the great afflicted-ground dharmas have been explained. The great unwholesome dharma ground is called the great unwholesome ground; here, whatever dharma belongs to the great unwholesome ground is called a great unwholesome-ground dharma, namely a dharma that is always present in unwholesome minds. What are those dharmas? The verse says:

唯遍不善心，無慚及無愧。

Only pervading unwholesome minds are shamelessness and lack of conscience.

論曰：唯二心所但與一切不善心俱，謂無慚、愧，故唯二種名此地法。此二法相如後當辯。如是已說大不善地法。小煩惱法地名小煩惱地，此中若法小煩惱地所有名小煩惱地法，謂法少分染汙心俱。彼法是何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Only two mental factors are always together with all unwholesome minds, namely shamelessness and lack of conscience; therefore only these two are called dharmas of this ground. The characteristics of these two dharmas will be explained later. Thus the great unwholesome-ground dharmas have been explained. The minor afflicted dharma ground is called the minor afflicted ground; here, whatever dharma belongs to the minor afflicted ground is called a minor afflicted-ground dharma, namely a dharma that is together with a partly defiled mind. What are those dharmas? The verse says:

忿覆慳嫉惱，害恨諂誑憍，

Anger, concealment, stinginess, jealousy, vexation, harmfulness, resentment, deceit, fraud, and arrogance,

如是類名為，小煩惱地法。

dharmas of this kind are called minor afflicted-ground dharmas.

論曰：如是類法唯修所斷，意識地起、無明相應、各別現行，故名為小煩惱地法。此法如後隨煩惱中當廣分別。如是已說五品心所。復有此餘不定心所，惡作、睡眠、尋、伺等法，此中應說。於何心品有幾心所決定俱生？頌曰：

The treatise says: Dharmas of this kind are eliminated only by cultivation, arise on the ground of mind-consciousness, are associated with ignorance, and operate separately, and are therefore called minor afflicted-ground dharmas. These dharmas will be analyzed at length later under the secondary afflictions. Thus the five groups of mental factors have been explained. There are also other indeterminate mental factors, such as regret, sleep, initial thought, and sustained thought, which should be discussed here. In which classes of mind do how many mental factors necessarily arise together? The verse says:

欲有尋伺故，於善心品中，

Because the desire realm has initial and sustained thought, in the wholesome class of mind,

二十二心所，有時增惡作。

there are twenty-two mental factors, and at times regret is added.

於不善不共，見俱唯二十，

In the unwholesome, the uncommon and that associated with views have only twenty,

四煩惱忿等，惡作二十一，

the four afflictions and anger and the like, with regret, have twenty-one;

有覆有十八，無覆許十二，

the obscured have eighteen, and the unobscured are admitted to have twelve;

睡眠遍不違，若有皆增一。

sleep pervades without contradiction, and when present each adds one.

論曰：且欲界中心品有五，謂善唯一。不善有二，謂不共無明相應及餘煩惱等相應。無記有二，謂有覆無記及無覆無記。然欲界心定有尋伺故，善心品必二十二心所俱生，謂十大地法、十大善地法，及不定二，謂尋與伺。非諸善心皆有惡作，有時增數至二十三。惡作者何？惡所作體名為惡作。應知此中緣惡作法說名惡作，謂緣惡作心追悔性，如緣空解脫門說名為空，緣不淨無貪說為不淨。又見世間約所依處說能依事，如言一切村邑國土皆來集會。惡作即是追悔所依，故約所依說為惡作。又於果體假立因名，如說此六觸處應知名宿作業。若緣未作事，云何名惡作？於未作事亦立作名，如追悔言我先不作如是事業，是我惡作。何等惡作說名為善？謂於善惡不作作中心追悔性。與此相違名為不善。此二各依二處而起，若於不善不共心品，必有二十心所俱生，謂十大地法、六大煩惱地法、二大不善地法，並二不定，謂尋與伺。何等名為不共心品？謂此心品唯有無明，無有所餘貪煩惱等。於不善見相應心品，亦有二十心所俱生，名即如前不共品說。非見增故有二十一，以即於十大地法中慧用差別說為見故。言不善見相應心者，謂此心中或有邪見、或有見取、或戒禁取。於四不善貪、瞋、慢、疑煩惱心品，有二十一心所俱生，二十如不共，加貪等隨一。於前所說忿等相應隨煩惱品，亦二十一心所俱生，二十如不共，加忿等隨一。不善惡作相應心品，亦二十一心所俱生，謂即惡作第二十一。略說不善不共及見相應品中唯有二十，餘四煩惱及隨煩惱相應品中有二十一。若於無記有覆心品唯有十八心所俱生，謂十大地法、六大煩惱地法，並二不定，謂尋與伺。欲界無記有覆心者，謂與薩迦耶見及邊執見相應，此中見不增，應知如前釋。於餘無記無覆心品，許唯十二心所俱生，謂十大地法並不定尋伺。

The treatise says: In the desire realm there are five classes of mind: wholesome is only one; unwholesome has two, namely the uncommon, associated with ignorance, and that associated with the other afflictions and so on; indeterminate has two, namely the obscured indeterminate and the unobscured indeterminate. Since the desire-realm mind certainly has initial and sustained thought, the wholesome class of mind necessarily has twenty-two mental factors arising together, namely the ten great-ground dharmas, the ten great wholesome-ground dharmas, and the two indeterminate ones, initial thought and sustained thought. Not all wholesome minds have regret; at times it is added and the number reaches twenty-three. What is regret? The substance of having done evil is called regret (kaukritya). It should be understood that here what takes regret as its object is called regret, namely the nature of remorse that has regret as its object, just as what takes the door of emptiness as its object is called empty, and non-greed that takes the impure as its object is called impure. It is also seen in the world that what is supported is spoken of in terms of its support, as when one says all villages and lands came to assemble. Regret is the support of remorse, so it is spoken of by its support as regret. Again, the name of cause is provisionally set up on the substance of the result, as when it is said that these six sense-bases should be understood as past karma. If it takes an unperformed action as its object, how is it called regret? The word doing is also established for an unperformed action, as in remorse when one says: I did not do such a deed, and that is my regret. What regret is called wholesome? It is the nature of remorse in the mind about wholesome and evil acts, whether not done or done. What is contrary to this is called unwholesome. These two each arise on two grounds. In the unwholesome uncommon class of mind, twenty mental factors necessarily arise together, namely the ten great-ground dharmas, the six great afflicted-ground dharmas, the two great unwholesome-ground dharmas, and the two indeterminate ones, initial and sustained thought. What is called the uncommon class of mind? It is a mind in which there is only ignorance, without greed and the other afflictions. In the unwholesome class of mind associated with views there are also twenty mental factors arising together, with names as stated for the uncommon class. It is not that, because view is added, there are twenty-one, since view is spoken of as a difference in the function of wisdom among the ten great-ground dharmas. The unwholesome mind associated with views is one in which there is either wrong view, or view of holding to views, or holding to rules and rituals. In the class of mind with the four unwholesome afflictions, greed, hatred, pride, and doubt, there are twenty-one mental factors arising together: the twenty as in the uncommon class, with one of greed and the others added. In the class of secondary afflictions associated with anger and the others mentioned before, there are also twenty-one mental factors arising together: the twenty as in the uncommon class, with one of anger and the others added. In the class of mind associated with unwholesome regret there are also twenty-one mental factors arising together, namely regret itself as the twenty-first. In brief, the unwholesome uncommon class and the class associated with views have only twenty, while the classes associated with the four afflictions and the secondary afflictions have twenty-one. In the obscured indeterminate class of mind there are only eighteen mental factors arising together, namely the ten great-ground dharmas, the six great afflicted-ground dharmas, and the two indeterminate ones, initial and sustained thought. The obscured indeterminate mind of the desire realm is one associated with the view of a real self (satkayadrishti) and the view of extremes; here view is not added, to be understood as explained before. In the other, unobscured indeterminate class of mind, only twelve mental factors are admitted to arise together, namely the ten great-ground dharmas and the indeterminate initial and sustained thought.

外方諸師欲令惡作亦通無記，此相應品便有十三心所俱起。應知睡眠與前所說一切心品皆不相違，通善不善無記性故。隨何品有即說此增，謂二十二至二十三，若二十三至二十四。不善無記如例應知。已說欲界心所俱生諸品定量，當說上界。頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) Masters of other regions want regret to extend also to the indeterminate, in which case thirteen mental factors would arise in the associated class. It should be understood that sleep is not contrary to any of the classes of mind stated above, because it is wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate in nature. Whichever class has it, one is added there, so twenty-two goes to twenty-three, and twenty-three goes to twenty-four. The unwholesome and indeterminate should be understood by analogy. The fixed numbers of the classes in which mental factors arise together in the desire realm have been explained; the higher realms will now be discussed. The verse says:

初定除不善，及惡作睡眠，

In the first meditation, remove the unwholesome and regret and sleep;

中定又除尋，上兼除伺等。

in the middle meditation, remove also initial thought; in the higher, remove also sustained thought and the rest.

論曰：初靜慮中於前所說諸心所法，除唯不善、惡作、睡眠，餘皆具有。唯不善者，謂瞋煩惱，除諂、誑、憍所餘忿等及無慚愧。餘皆有者，如欲界說。中間靜慮除前所除，又更除尋，餘皆具有。第二靜慮以上乃至無色界中除前所除，又除伺等。等者顯除諂、誑，餘皆如前具有。經說：諂誑極至梵天，眾相依故，上地無有。以大梵王處自梵眾，忽被馬勝苾芻問言：此四大種當於何位盡滅無餘？梵王不知無餘滅位，便矯亂答：我於此梵眾是大梵，自在作者、化者、生者、養者，是一切父。作是語已，引出眾外諂言愧謝，令還問佛。如是已說於諸界地諸心品中心所數量，今次當說於前所辯諸心所中少分差別。無慚無愧、愛之與敬差別云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: In the first meditation, among the mental-factor dharmas stated earlier, remove only the unwholesome, regret, and sleep; all the others are present. Only the unwholesome means the affliction of hatred, and, apart from deceit, fraud, and arrogance, anger and the rest together with shamelessness and lack of conscience. All the others are present, as explained for the desire realm. In the intermediate meditation, remove what was removed before and also initial thought; all the others are present. From the second meditation upward, up to the formless realm, remove what was removed before and also sustained thought and the rest. "And the rest" shows that deceit and fraud are removed, with the others present as before. The sutra says: deceit and fraud extend as far as the Brahma heaven, because the assemblies rely on them, so they are absent in higher planes. This is because the Great Brahma, being among his own Brahma assembly, was suddenly questioned by the monk Ashvajit: where do these four great elements wholly cease without remainder? Brahma did not know the state of cessation without remainder, and so gave a deceptive and confused answer: I am Great Brahma in this assembly, the sovereign, the maker, the transformer, the begetter, the nourisher, the father of all. Having said this, he led the monk out of the assembly, apologized to him with flattering words, and sent him back to ask the Buddha. Thus the number of mental factors in the classes of mind in the various realms and planes has been explained; now we shall discuss the finer differences among the mental factors analyzed before. How do shamelessness and lack of conscience, and love and respect, differ? The verse says:

無慚愧不重，於罪不見怖，

Shamelessness and lack of conscience: not honoring, and not fearing when seeing wrongdoing;

愛敬謂信慚，唯於欲色有。

love and respect are faith and shame, existing only in the desire and form realms.

論曰：此中無慚無愧別者，於諸功德及有德者，無敬無崇、無所忌難、無所隨屬，說名無慚，即是恭敬所敵對法。為諸善士所訶厭法說名為罪，於此罪中不見怖畏說名無愧。此中怖言，顯非愛果能生怖故。不見怖言欲顯何義？為見而不怖名不見怖、為不見彼怖名不見怖？若爾何失？二俱有過。若見而不怖應顯智慧，若不見彼怖應顯無明。此言不顯見與不見，何所顯耶？此顯有法是隨煩惱為彼二因，說名無愧。有餘師說：於所造罪自觀無恥名曰無慚，觀他無恥說名無愧。若爾，此二所觀不同，云何俱起？不說此二一時俱起別觀自他。然有無恥，觀自時勝說名無慚。復有無恥，觀他時增說為無愧。慚愧差別翻此應知，謂翻初釋有敬有崇、有所忌難、有所隨屬說名為慚，於罪見怖說名為愧。翻第二釋，於所造罪自觀有恥說名為慚，觀他有恥說名為愧。已說無慚無愧差別。愛敬別者，愛謂愛樂，體即是信。然愛有二：一有染汙、二無染汙。有染謂貪，如愛妻子等。無染謂信，如愛師長等。有信非愛，謂緣苦集信。有愛非信，謂諸染汙愛。有通信愛，謂緣滅道信。有非信愛，謂除前三相。有說：信者忍許有德，由此為先方生愛樂，故愛非信。敬謂敬重，體即是慚，如前解慚謂有敬等。有慚非敬，謂緣苦集慚。有通慚敬，謂緣滅道慚。有說：敬者有所崇重，由此為先方生慚恥，故敬非慚。望所緣境補特伽羅，愛敬有無應作四句。有愛無敬，謂於妻子共住門人等。有敬無愛，謂於他師有德貴人等。有愛有敬，謂於自師父母伯叔等。無愛無敬，謂除前三相。如是愛敬欲色界有，無色界無。豈不信慚大善地法無色亦有？愛敬有二，謂緣於法補特伽羅，緣法愛敬通三界有。此中意說緣補特伽羅者，故欲色有，無色界無。如是已說愛敬差別。尋、伺、慢、憍差別云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Here, regarding the difference between shamelessness and lack of conscience: not respecting or revering virtues and those who possess virtue, being without reserve or awe, and without submission, is called shamelessness, which is the opposite of respect. What is despised by good people is called wrongdoing; not seeing and fearing it is called lack of conscience. Here the word fear shows that it is because a result that is not loved can produce fear. What does the expression not seeing and fearing mean to show? Is it that one sees but does not fear, which is called not seeing and fearing, or that one does not see and so does not fear, which is called not seeing and fearing? If so, what fault? Both have faults. If one sees but does not fear, this would show wisdom; if one does not see and so does not fear, this would show ignorance. This expression does not show seeing or not seeing. What does it show? It shows that there is a dharma which is a secondary affliction and is the cause of both, and this is called lack of conscience. Other masters say: when one shamelessly regards oneself in relation to a sin one has committed, this is called shamelessness; when one shamelessly regards others, this is called lack of conscience. If so, these two have different objects of regard; how do they arise together? It is not said that these two arise at one time with separate regard for oneself and for others. Rather, there is shamelessness in which regard for oneself predominates, called shamelessness (ahrikya), and there is shamelessness in which regard for others increases, called lack of conscience (anapatrapya). The differences between shame (hri) and conscience (apatrapya) should be understood as the opposite: following the first explanation, having respect, reverence, reserve, awe, and submission is called shame, and seeing wrongdoing and fearing it is called conscience. Following the second explanation, regarding oneself with a sense of shame about a sin committed is called shame, and regarding others with a sense of shame is called conscience. The difference between shamelessness and lack of conscience has been explained. As for the difference between love and respect, love means fondness, and its substance is faith. Love is of two kinds, one defiled and one undefiled. The defiled is greed, as in love of wife and children. The undefiled is faith, as in love of teachers and elders. There is faith that is not love, namely faith whose object is suffering and its origin. There is love that is not faith, namely all defiled love. There is what is both faith and love, namely faith whose object is cessation and the path. There is what is neither, namely whatever is other than the preceding three. Some say: faith admits that there are virtues, and from this as precondition fondness arises, so love is not faith. Respect means reverence, and its substance is shame, as explained before for shame, namely having respect and the rest. There is shame that is not respect, namely shame whose object is suffering and its origin. There is what is both shame and respect, namely shame whose object is cessation and the path. Some say: respect honors what is to be esteemed, and from this as precondition shame arises, so respect is not shame. In regard to the person who is the object, a four-way alternative should be made on whether love and respect are present. There is love without respect, namely toward wife, children, those living together, disciples, and the like. There is respect without love, namely toward the teachers of others, the virtuous, and the nobly born. There is both love and respect, namely toward one's own teacher, parents, uncles, and the like. There is neither love nor respect, namely whatever is other than the preceding three. Such love and respect exist in the desire and form realms and not in the formless realm. Are faith and shame, great wholesome-ground dharmas, not also present in the formless realm? Love and respect are of two kinds, namely taking dharma as object and taking a person as object. Love and respect that take dharma as object exist in all three realms. What is meant here is that which takes a person as object, so it exists in the desire and form realms and not in the formless realm. Thus the differences between love and respect have been explained. How do initial thought, sustained thought, pride, and arrogance differ? The verse says:

尋伺心麁細，慢對他心舉，

Initial and sustained thought are coarse and subtle states of mind; pride is the mind raised up in regard to others;

憍由染自法，心高無所顧。

arrogance arises from being defiled by one's own dharmas, a mind high and heedless of consequence.

論曰：尋伺別者，謂心麁細，心之麁性名尋，心之細性名伺。云何此二一心相應？有作是釋：如冷水上浮以熟酥，上烈日光之所照觸，酥因水日非釋非凝。如是一心有尋有伺，心由尋伺不遍細麁，故於一心俱有作用。若爾，尋伺是麁細因，非麁細體，如水日光是凝釋，日體非凝釋。又麁細性相待而立，界地品別上下相形，乃至有頂應有尋伺。又麁細性無別體類，不可依之以別尋伺。復有釋言：尋伺二法是語言行，故契經言：要有尋伺方有語言，非無尋伺此語言行。麁者名尋，細者名伺，於一心內別法是麁、別法是細，於理何違？若有別體類，理實無違；然無別體類，故成違理，一體類中無容上下俱時起故。若言體類亦有差別，應說體類別相云何。此二體類別相難說，但由上下顯其別相，非由上下能顯別相，一一類中有上下故。由是應知，尋伺二法定不可執一心相應。若爾，云何契經中說：於初靜慮具足五支。具五支言就一地說，非一剎那，故無有過。如是已說尋伺差別。慢憍別者，慢謂對他心自舉性，稱量自他德類差別，心自舉恃𣣋蔑於他故名為慢。憍謂染著自法為先，令心傲逸無所顧性。有餘師說：如因酒生欣舉差別說名為醉，如是貪生欣舉差別說名為憍。是謂慢憍差別之相。如是已說諸心心所品類不同俱生異相。然心心所於契經中隨義建立種種名想，今當辯此名義差別。頌曰：

The treatise says: The difference between initial thought (vitarka) and sustained thought (vicara) is this: the coarseness of mind is called vitarka, and the subtlety of mind is called vicara. How can these two be associated with a single mind? Some explain it thus: just as clarified butter floats on cold water, and strong sunlight shines on it, the butter is neither melted nor solidified because of the water and the sun. In the same way, in one mind that has both vitarka and vicara, the mind is neither entirely coarse nor entirely subtle because of them, and so both can function together in a single mind. If so, then vitarka and vicara are the causes of coarseness and subtlety, not the substance of coarseness and subtlety, just as water and sunlight are the causes of solidifying and melting, while the sun itself is not what solidifies or melts. Moreover, coarseness and subtlety are established relative to each other, and the differences among realms, grounds and levels are measured by higher and lower, so that even the Peak of Existence would have to possess vitarka and vicara. Furthermore, coarseness and subtlety have no separate substance or class, so one cannot rely on them to distinguish vitarka from vicara. Another explanation says: the two dharmas, vitarka and vicara, are activities of speech, and so a sutra says that only where there is vitarka and vicara is there speech, and without them there is no such activity of speech. What is coarse is called vitarka and what is subtle is called vicara. Within one mind, one dharma is coarse and another is subtle; what is contrary to reason in that? If they had separate substances and classes, there would indeed be no contradiction in reason; but since they have no separate substance or class, it becomes contrary to reason, because within a single class there is no room for higher and lower to arise at the same time. If you say that there are also differences of class, you should explain what the distinguishing marks of those classes are. The distinguishing marks of these two classes are hard to state; they can only be shown through higher and lower, but it is not that higher and lower can reveal the distinguishing marks, because higher and lower exist within each single class. From this it should be known that vitarka and vicara can definitely not be held to be associated with one mind. If so, how does a sutra say that the first dhyana is complete with five factors? The statement that it has five factors is made with respect to one ground, not to a single instant, and so there is no fault. Thus the difference between vitarka and vicara has been explained. As for the difference between pride (mana) and arrogance (mada): pride is the mind's self-exaltation toward others, weighing the differences in the qualities of oneself and others; because the mind exalts itself, relies on itself and despises others, it is called pride. Arrogance is the quality of being attached to one's own dharmas first, so that the mind becomes haughty, unrestrained and heedless. Other teachers say: just as the elation produced by wine is called intoxication, so the elation produced by craving is called arrogance. This is the difference between pride and arrogance. Thus the differences in kind and in simultaneous arising of the various minds and mental factors have been explained. However, in the sutras, minds and mental factors are given various names and conceptions according to their meanings, and we shall now discuss the differences in these names and meanings. The verse says:

心意識體一，心心所有依，

Mind, thought and consciousness have one substance; minds and mental factors have a basis,

有緣有行相，相應義有五。

have an object and have an aspect; the meanings of association are five.

論曰：集起故名心，思量故名意，了別故名識。復有釋言：淨不淨界種種差別故名為心，即此為他作所依止故名為意，作能依止故名為識。故心、意、識三名所詮，義雖有異而體是一。如心意識三名所詮義異體一，諸心心所名有所依所緣、行相相應亦爾，名義雖殊而體是一。謂心心所皆名有所依，託所依根故。或名有所緣，取所緣境故。或名有行相，即於所緣品類差別等起行相故。或名相應，等和合故。依何義故名等和合？有五義故，謂心心所五義平等故說相應，所依所緣行相時事皆平等故。事平等者，一相應中如心體一，諸心所法各各亦爾。已說心心所廣分別義。心不相應行何者是耶？頌曰：

The treatise says: Because it accumulates and gives rise, it is called citta (mind); because it deliberates, it is called manas (thought); because it discerns, it is called vijnana (consciousness). Another explanation says: because it is the variety of pure and impure realms, it is called mind; because it serves as the basis for others, it is called thought; because it acts as what relies on a basis, it is called consciousness. Therefore, although the meanings expressed by the three names mind, thought and consciousness differ, their substance is one. Just as the three names mind, thought and consciousness express different meanings yet have one substance, so too minds and mental factors are said to have a basis, an object, an aspect, and association, and although the names and meanings differ, the substance is one. That is to say, minds and mental factors are all said to have a basis because they depend on a basis, namely the sense faculty. Or they are said to have an object because they take hold of an object. Or they are said to have an aspect because they arise with distinct aspects in the various kinds of objects. Or they are said to be associated because they are equally combined. In what sense are they called equally combined? There are five reasons: minds and mental factors are said to be associated because they are equal in five respects, namely basis, object, aspect, time and entity. As for equality of entity, within one association, just as the mind is one in substance, so too each of the mental factors is one. The broad analysis of minds and mental factors has now been given. What, then, are the dharmas dissociated from mind? The verse says:

心不相應行，得非得同分，

The formations dissociated from mind are: possession, non-possession, homogeneity,

無想二定命，相名身等類。

the non-percipient attainment, the two attainments, life faculty, characteristics, names, bodies and the like.

論曰：如是諸法心不相應，非色等性，行蘊所攝，是故名心不相應行。於中且辯得非得相。頌曰：

The treatise says: These dharmas are dissociated from mind, are not of the nature of form and so on, and are included in the aggregate of formations, and so they are called formations dissociated from mind. Among them, let us first discuss the characteristics of possession and non-possession. The verse says:

得謂獲成就，非得此相違，

Possession means obtaining or being in possession; non-possession is its opposite,

得非得唯於，自相續二滅。

and possession and non-possession exist only in one's own continuum and the two cessations.

論曰：得有二種，一者未得已失今獲、二者得已不失成就，應知非得與此相違。於何法中有得非得？於自相續及二滅中。謂有為法若有墮在自相續中有得非得，非他相續，無有成就他身法故。非非相續，無有成就非情法故。且有為法決定如是，無為法中唯於二滅有得非得。一切有情無不成就非擇滅者，故對法中傳說如是：誰成無漏法？謂一切有情，除初剎那具縛聖者及餘一切具縛異生，諸餘有情皆成擇滅。決定無有成就虛空，故於虛空不言有得，以得無故非得亦無。宗明得非得，相翻而立故。諸有得者亦有非得，義準可知，故不別釋。何緣知有別物名得？契經說故。如契經言：聖者於彼十無學法，以生以得以成就故，已斷五支，乃至廣說。若爾，非情及他相續亦應成就。所以者何？契經說故。如契經說：苾芻當知，有轉輪王成就七寶，乃至廣說。此中自在說名成就，謂轉輪王於彼七寶有自在力，隨樂轉故。此既自在說名成就，餘復何因知有別物？許有別物有何非理？如是非理，謂所執得無體可知，如色聲等或貪瞋等；無用可知，如眼耳等，故無容有別物名得。執有別物，是為非理。若謂此得亦有作用，謂作所得諸法生因，是則無為應無有得。又所得法未得已捨，界地轉易及離染故。彼現無得，當云何生？若俱生得為生因者，生與生生復何所作？又非情法應定不生。又具縛者，下中上品煩惱現起差別應無，得無別故。若由餘因有差別者，即應由彼諸法得生，得復何用？故彼所言得有作用，謂作所得諸法生因，理不成立。誰言此得作法生因？若爾，此得有何作用？謂於差別為建立因。所以者何？若無有得，異生聖者起世俗心，應無異生及諸聖者建立差別。豈不煩惱已斷、未斷有差別故，應有差別？若執無得，如何可說煩惱已斷及與未斷？許有得者斷未斷成，由煩惱得離未離故。

The treatise says: There are two kinds of possession: first, obtaining what was not yet obtained or what was lost, and now acquiring it; second, having obtained something and not losing it, so that one is in possession of it. It should be known that non-possession is the opposite of these. In which dharmas are there possession and non-possession? In one's own continuum and in the two cessations. That is, among conditioned dharmas, only those that fall within one's own continuum have possession and non-possession, not those in another's continuum, because one cannot be in possession of the dharmas of another person's body. Nor do they exist in what is not a continuum, because one cannot be in possession of dharmas belonging to non-sentient things. Such is definitely the case for conditioned dharmas; among unconditioned dharmas, possession and non-possession exist only with respect to the two cessations. There is no sentient being who is not in possession of cessation not due to deliberation, and so it is transmitted in the Abhidharma: Who possesses the untainted dharmas? All sentient beings, except noble ones still bound at the first moment, and all other bound ordinary beings; all other sentient beings possess cessation through deliberation. There is definitely no one in possession of space, and so no possession is spoken of with regard to space; since there is no possession, there is no non-possession either. Possession and non-possession are established as opposites, so where there is possession there is also non-possession; this can be understood by implication and is therefore not explained separately. How do we know there is a separate thing called possession? Because the sutras say so. As a sutra says: the noble one, because of birth, because of obtaining and because of possessing those ten dharmas of one beyond training, has cut off the five factors, and so on at length. If so, non-sentient things and the continuum of others should also be possessed. Why? Because a sutra says so. As a sutra says: Monks, you should know that a wheel-turning king possesses the seven treasures, and so on at length. Here, being sovereign is called possessing, that is, the wheel-turning king has the power of mastery over those seven treasures and turns them as he pleases. Since this sovereignty is called possession, how do we know that there is some other separate thing? What is unreasonable in admitting a separate thing? It is unreasonable in this way: the possession you hold to has no substance that can be known, as form and sound or craving and anger do; nor does it have a function that can be known, as eyes and ears do. Therefore there is no room for a separate thing called possession. To hold that there is a separate thing is unreasonable. If you say that this possession also has a function, namely acting as the cause of the arising of the dharmas possessed, then unconditioned dharmas should have no possession. Moreover, the dharmas possessed may be abandoned after being possessed, or changed in realm and ground, or left behind through detachment. Since the present one has no possession, how will it arise? If simultaneous possession is the cause of arising, what do arising and the arising of arising then do? Also, non-sentient dharmas should definitely not arise. Furthermore, among the bound, the differences in the arising of lower, middle and higher grades of affliction should not exist, since possession has no difference. If the difference arises from some other cause, then those dharmas should be produced by that cause, and what use is possession? Therefore your claim that possession has a function, namely acting as the cause for the arising of the dharmas possessed, is not established by reason. Who says that this possession acts as the cause of the arising of dharmas? If so, what function does this possession have? It is the cause for establishing distinctions. Why? If there were no possession, then when ordinary beings and noble ones produce worldly minds, there should be no establishment of the distinction between ordinary beings and noble ones. Surely there is a difference because afflictions are either already cut off or not yet cut off? If you hold that there is no possession, how can one speak of afflictions as cut off or not cut off? If you admit possession, then being cut off or not is established, because of whether one is separated from the possession of affliction or not.

此由所依有差別故，煩惱已斷未斷義成。謂諸聖者見修道力，令所依身轉變異本，於彼二道所斷惑中無復功能令其現起。猶如種子火所焚燒，轉變異前無能生用。如是聖者所依身中無生惑能名煩惱斷。或世間道損所依中煩惱種子亦名為斷，與上相違名為未斷。諸未斷者說名成就，諸已斷者名不成就，如是二種但假非實。善法有二：一者不由功力修得、二者要由功力修得，即名生得及加行得。不由功力而修得者，若所依中種未被損名為成就，若所依中種已被損名不成就。謂斷善者由邪見力損所依中善根種子應知名斷，非所依中善根種子畢竟被害說名為斷。要由功力而修得者，若所依中彼法已起生彼功力自在無損說名成就，與此相違名不成就。如是二種亦假非實。故所依中唯有種子未拔未損增長自在，於如是位立成就名，無有別物。此中何法名為種子？謂名與色於生自果所有展轉隣近功能，此由相續轉變差別。何名轉變？謂相續中前後異性。何名相續？謂因果性三世諸行。何名差別？謂有無間生果功能。然有處說，若成就貪便不能修四念住者。彼說：耽著貪煩惱者，不能厭捨，故名成就。由隨耽著貪愛時分，於四念住必不能修。如是成就遍一切種，唯假非實。唯遮於此名不成就，亦假非實。毘婆沙師說：此二種皆有別物實而非假。如是二途皆為善說。所以者何？不違理故、我所宗故。已辯自性，差別云何？且應辯得。頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) This is because of the difference in the basis, and so the meaning of afflictions being cut off or not yet cut off is established. That is, through the power of the paths of seeing and cultivation, noble ones cause the body that serves as their basis to be transformed and changed from what it was, so that in the afflictions to be cut off by those two paths it no longer has any capacity to make them arise. It is like a seed burned by fire, which, having been transformed and changed from before, has no power to sprout. Thus, in the basis-body of the noble ones, there is no capacity to produce afflictions, and this is called the cutting off of afflictions. Or else, when the seeds of affliction in the basis are weakened by the worldly path, this too is called cutting off; the opposite of this is called not yet cut off. Those not yet cut off are said to be possessed, and those already cut off are said not to be possessed; these two are only provisional and not real. Wholesome dharmas are of two kinds: first, those obtained without effort, and second, those obtained only through effort; that is, innate and acquired through practice. For those obtained without effort, if the seeds in the basis have not been damaged, one is called in possession of them, and if the seeds in the basis have been damaged, one is called not in possession. It should be understood that the cutting off of wholesome roots occurs through the power of wrong views damaging the seeds of wholesome roots in the basis; it does not mean that the seeds of wholesome roots in the basis are completely destroyed and thus called cut off. For those obtained only through effort, if those dharmas have already arisen in the basis and the power of effort that gives rise to them is sovereign and undamaged, one is called in possession, and the opposite is called not in possession. These two are also provisional and not real. Therefore, it is only when the seeds in the basis have not been uprooted or damaged and are growing freely that the name of possession is established in that condition; there is no separate thing. What dharma is called a seed here? It is the successive, proximate capacity of name and form to produce their own fruit, which is the result of a particular transformation of the continuum. What is called transformation? It is the difference between earlier and later moments within a continuum. What is called continuum? It is the conditioned formations of the three times in the nature of cause and effect. What is called particularity? It is the capacity to produce a fruit without interval. However, in some places it is said that if one is in possession of craving, one cannot cultivate the four foundations of mindfulness. That statement means: one who is attached to the affliction of craving cannot feel weariness and abandon it, and so is called in possession. Because of the period in which one clings to craving and love, one certainly cannot cultivate the four foundations of mindfulness. Such possession extends to all kinds and is only provisional and not real. Likewise, merely negating this and calling it non-possession is also provisional. The Vaibhashikas say that both kinds are real separate things and not provisional. Both of these paths are well said. Why? Because they do not contradict reason, and because they accord with my own school. The nature has been discussed; what about the distinctions? Let us first discuss possession. The verse says:

三世法各三，善等唯善等，

Dharmas of the three times each have three kinds; wholesome and the like have only the wholesome and the like,

有繫自界得，無繫得通四，

bound dharmas have possession only in their own realm; the possession of unbound dharmas extends to four,

非學無學三，非所斷二種。

neither training nor beyond training has three; the not-to-be-cut-off has two kinds.

論曰：三世法得各有三種，謂過去法有過去得、有未來得、有現在得，如是未來及現在法各有三得。又善等法得唯善等，謂善不善及無記法，如其次第，有善不善無記三得。又有繫法得唯自界，謂欲色界無色界法，如其次第唯有欲色無色三得。若無繫法得通四種，謂無漏法總而言之得有四種，即三界得及無漏得。別分別者，非擇滅得，通三界繫。若擇滅得，色無色繫及與無漏。道諦得，唯無漏故。無繫法得，有四種。又有學法得唯有學，若無學法得唯無學，非學非無學得有差別，謂此法得總說有三，別分別者一切有漏及三無為皆名非學非無學法。且有漏法唯有非學非無學得，非擇滅得。及非聖道所引擇滅得亦如是，若有學道所引擇滅得即有學，若無學道所引擇滅得即無學。又見修所斷法，如其次第有見修所斷得。非所斷法得有差別，謂此法得總說有二，別分別者，諸無漏法名非所斷，非擇滅得唯修所斷。若非聖道所引擇滅得亦如是。聖道所引擇滅之得及道諦得，皆非所斷。前雖總說三世法各三，今應簡別其中差別相。頌曰：

The treatise says: The possession of dharmas of the three times has three kinds each; that is, a past dharma has past possession, future possession and present possession, and likewise future and present dharmas each have three possessions. Moreover, the possession of wholesome and other dharmas is only of wholesome and so on; that is, wholesome, unwholesome and neutral dharmas have, respectively, wholesome, unwholesome and neutral possession. Furthermore, the possession of bound dharmas is only of their own realm; that is, dharmas of the desire realm, form realm and formless realm have only possession of the desire, form and formless realms respectively. The possession of unbound dharmas extends to four kinds; that is, in general the possession of untainted dharmas is of four kinds, namely possession of the three realms and untainted possession. Analyzed separately, the possession of cessation not due to deliberation extends to the bound states of the three realms. The possession of cessation through deliberation is of the form and formless realm bound states and of the untainted. The possession of the truth of the path is only untainted. Thus the possession of unbound dharmas is of four kinds. Further, the possession of dharmas of training is only of training; the possession of dharmas beyond training is only beyond training. The possession of what is neither training nor beyond training has differences: in general this possession is of three kinds, and analyzed separately, all tainted dharmas and the three unconditioned dharmas are called neither training nor beyond training. Tainted dharmas have only possession that is neither training nor beyond training, as does cessation not due to deliberation, and likewise cessation through deliberation not induced by the noble path. If cessation through deliberation is induced by the path of training, it is of training; if induced by the path beyond training, it is beyond training. Moreover, dharmas to be cut off by seeing and by cultivation have, respectively, possession to be cut off by seeing and by cultivation. The possession of dharmas not to be cut off has differences: in general this possession is of two kinds, and analyzed separately, all untainted dharmas are called not to be cut off; the possession of cessation not due to deliberation is to be cut off only by cultivation, and so is cessation through deliberation not induced by the noble path. The possession of cessation through deliberation induced by the noble path and the possession of the truth of the path are all not to be cut off. Although it was said in general above that dharmas of the three times each have three, we should now distinguish the differences among them. The verse says:

無記得俱起，除二通變化，

The possession of neutral dharmas arises together, except for the two, which extend to transformation,

有覆色亦俱，欲色無前起。

the obscured form also arises together; in the desire and form realms there is no earlier arising.

論曰：無覆無記得唯俱起，無前後生，勢力劣故。法若過去得亦過去，法若未來得亦未來，法若現在得亦現在。一切無覆無記法得皆如是耶？不爾。云何？除眼耳通及能變化。謂眼耳通慧及能變化心，勢力強故、加行差別所成辦故，雖是無覆無記性收，而有前後及俱起得。若工巧處及威儀路極數習者，得亦許爾。唯有無覆無記法得但俱起耶？不爾。云何？有覆無記色得亦爾。謂諸有覆無記表色得亦如前，但有俱起。雖有上品而亦不能發無表故勢力微劣，由此定無法前後得。如無記法得有別異，善不善得亦有異耶？亦有。云何？謂欲界繫善不善色得無前起，唯有俱生及後起得。非得如得，亦有如上品類別耶？不爾。云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The possession of unobscured neutral dharmas arises only together, with no earlier or later arising, because their power is weak. If a dharma is past, its possession is also past; if a dharma is future, its possession is also future; if a dharma is present, its possession is also present. Is this so for the possession of all unobscured neutral dharmas? It is not. How then? Excepting the divine eye and divine ear, and the capacity for transformation. That is, the wisdom of the divine eye and ear and the mind capable of transformation, being powerful and accomplished through the distinctions of preparatory effort, although included in the unobscured neutral nature, have earlier, later and simultaneous possession. In the case of the sphere of crafts and the postures, when they are practiced extremely often, their possession may also be so. Is it only the possession of unobscured neutral dharmas that arises together? It is not. How then? The possession of obscured neutral form is also so. That is, the possession of obscured neutral manifest form is also as above, and only arises together. Although it may be of a high grade, it still cannot give rise to unmanifest form because its power is weak, and for this reason there is definitely no earlier or later possession of such dharmas. Just as the possession of neutral dharmas has differences, does the possession of wholesome and unwholesome dharmas also have differences? It does. How? The possession of wholesome and unwholesome form bound to the desire realm has no earlier arising, and has only simultaneous and later possession. Is non-possession like possession, also having such varieties as those above? It is not. How? The verse says:

非得淨無記，去來世各三，

Non-possession is pure and neutral; the past and future each have three,

三界不繫三，許聖道非得，

the three realms and the unbound have three; the noble path is said to have non-possession,

說名異生性，得法易地捨。

called the state of ordinary beings; possession of a dharma is abandoned when the ground changes.

論曰：性差別者，一切非得皆唯無覆無記性攝。世差別者，過去未來各有三種，謂現在法決定無有現在非得，唯有過去未來非得，過去未來一一各有三世非得。界差別者，三界繫法及不繫法各三非得，謂欲界繫法有三界非得，色無色界繫及不繫亦爾。定無非得是無漏者。所以者何？由許聖道非得，說名異生性故。如本論言：云何異生性？謂不獲聖法。不獲即是非得異名，非說異生性是無漏應理。不獲何聖法名異生性？謂不獲一切，不別說故。此不獲言，表離於獲。若異此者，諸佛世尊亦不成就聲聞獨覺種性聖法，應名異生。若爾，彼論應說純言不要須說，此一句中含純義故，如說此類食水食風。有說：不獲苦法智忍及俱生法名異生性。不可難言道類智時捨此法故應成非聖，前已永害彼非得故。若爾，此性既通三乘，不獲何等名異生性？此亦應言不獲一切。若爾，此應同前有難。此難復應如前通釋。若爾，重說唐捐其功。如經部師，所說為善。經部所說其義云何？謂曾未生聖法相續分位差別名異生性。如是非得何時當捨？此法非得，得此法時或轉易地捨此非得。如聖道非得說名異生性，得此聖道時或易地便捨。餘法非得，類此應思。若非得得斷，非得非得生，如是名為捨於非得。得與非得，豈復有餘得與非得？應言此二各復有餘得及非得。若爾，豈不有無窮過？無無窮過，許得展轉更相成故。以法生時並其自體三法俱起，第一本法、第二法得、第三得得。謂相續中法得起故成就本法及與得得，得得起故成就法得，是故此中無無窮過。如是若善若染汙法，一一自體初生起時並其自體三法俱起，第二剎那六法俱起，謂三法得及三得得，第三剎那十八俱起，謂於第一第二剎那所生諸法，有九法得及九得得。如是諸得後後轉增。

The treatise says: Regarding differences of nature, all non-possession is included only in the unobscured neutral nature. Regarding differences of time, the past and future each have three kinds; that is, a present dharma definitely has no present non-possession but only past and future non-possession, and past and future non-possession each has non-possession of the three times. Regarding differences of realm, dharmas bound to the three realms and unbound dharmas each have three kinds of non-possession; that is, a dharma bound to the desire realm has non-possession of the three realms, and so do those bound to the form and formless realms and the unbound. There is definitely no untainted non-possession. Why? Because the noble path is said to have non-possession, which is called the state of ordinary beings. As the root treatise says: What is the state of ordinary beings? It is not obtaining the noble dharmas. Not obtaining is another name for non-possession; it is not said that the state of ordinary beings is untainted, which would be reasonable only if it were. Which noble dharmas does one fail to obtain to be called an ordinary being? One fails to obtain all of them, since no distinction is made. This word not obtaining expresses separation from obtaining. If it were otherwise, the Buddhas, the World-Honored Ones, would also not possess the noble dharmas of the nature of the hearers and solitary realizers, and should be called ordinary beings. If so, that treatise should say simply all, and there would be no need to say not; but this one phrase contains the meaning of all, as when one says such persons eat water and eat wind. Some say: not obtaining the forbearance of the knowledge of suffering and the dharmas that arise together with it is called the state of ordinary beings. One cannot object that at the time of the knowledge of the path by category this dharma is abandoned and so one should be a non-noble one, because that non-possession was already permanently destroyed earlier. If so, since this nature is shared by the three vehicles, what does one fail to obtain in being called an ordinary being? This too should be said to be not obtaining all. If so, this has the same difficulty as before. This difficulty should again be answered by the same general explanation. If so, repeating it is wasted effort. As the Sutra masters say, their explanation is good. What is their explanation? It is that the distinct condition of a continuum in which the noble dharmas have never arisen is called the state of ordinary beings. When will this non-possession be abandoned? When one obtains that dharma, or when the ground changes, this non-possession is abandoned. For example, the non-possession of the noble path is called the state of ordinary beings, and on obtaining this noble path or on changing ground, it is abandoned. The non-possession of other dharmas should be thought of in the same way. If possession is cut off, non-possession arises as non-possession; this is called abandoning non-possession. Are there further possessions and non-possessions of possession and non-possession? It should be said that these two each have further possession and non-possession. If so, would there not be the fault of infinite regress? There is no infinite regress, because possessions are admitted to establish one another reciprocally. When a dharma arises, three dharmas arise together with its own substance: first the root dharma, second the possession of the dharma, and third the possession of possession. That is, the arising of the possession of the dharma in the continuum establishes possession of the root dharma and of the possession of possession, and the arising of the possession of possession establishes possession of the possession of the dharma, and so there is no infinite regress here. Thus, whether wholesome or defiled, at the first arising of each dharma itself, three dharmas arise together with it; at the second moment, six dharmas arise together, namely three possessions of dharmas and three possessions of possession; at the third moment, eighteen arise together, namely nine possessions of dharmas and nine possessions of possession with respect to the dharmas arisen in the first and second moments. In this way, possessions increase more and more.

一切過去未來煩惱及隨煩惱並生得善剎那剎那相應，俱有無始無終生死輪轉有無邊得，且一有情生死相續剎那剎那起無邊得，如是一切有情相續一一各別，剎那剎那無量無邊諸得俱起。如是諸得極多集會，無對礙故互相容受。若不爾者，一有情得虛空不容，況第二等。

(The treatise continues:) All past and future afflictions and secondary afflictions, together with innate wholesome states, are associated with each moment; together with the beginningless and endless wheel of birth and death there are boundless possessions, and for a single sentient being the continuum of birth and death gives rise to boundless possessions in each moment. Since the continuum of each sentient being is distinct, countless and boundless possessions arise together in every moment. Because these many possessions gather together without obstructing one another, they accommodate one another. If this were not so, the possessions of one sentient being would not fit in space, let alone those of a second and so on.

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang by imperial order.

分別根品第二之三

Chapter 2 on the Analysis of the Faculties, Part 3.

如是已辯得非得相。同分者何？頌曰：

The characteristics of possession and non-possession have now been explained. What is homogeneity? The verse says:

同分有情等。

Homogeneity is of sentient beings and the like.

論曰：有別實物名為同分，謂諸有情展轉類等，本論說此名眾同分。此復二種：一無差別、二有差別。無差別者，謂諸有情有情同分，一切有情各等有故。有差別者，謂諸有情界地趣生種姓、男女近事苾芻學無學等各別同分，一類有情各等有故。復有法同分，謂隨蘊處界。若無實物無差別相名同分者，展轉差別諸有情中，有情有情等無差別，覺及施設不應得有。如是蘊等等無差別覺及施設，如理應知。頗有死生不捨不得有情同分？應作四句。第一句者，謂是處死還生是處。第二句者，謂入正性離生位時，捨異生同分，得聖者同分。第三句者，謂是趣死生餘趣等。第四句者，謂除前相。若別有實物名異生同分，何用別立異生性耶？非異人同分，別有人性故。又非世間現見同分，以非色故。亦非覺慧所能了別，無別用故。世雖不了有情同分，而於有情謂無差別，故設有體亦何所用？又何因不許有無情同分？諸穀麥豆、金鐵菴羅半娜娑等，亦有自類互相似故。又諸同分展轉差別，如何於彼更無同分，而起無別覺施設耶？又應顯成勝論所執，彼宗執有總同句義，於一切法總同言智由此發生。彼復執有同異句義，於異品類同異言智由此發生。毘婆沙師作如是說：彼執與此義類不同，以說一物於多轉故。又縱於彼若顯不顯，然此同分必有實物，契經說故。如世尊言：若還來此得人同分，乃至廣說。雖有是說，而不說言別有實物名為同分。若爾，所說同分是何？即如是類諸行生時，於中假立人同分等，如諸穀麥豆等同分。此非善說，違我宗故。已辯同分。無想者何？頌曰：

The treatise says: There is a separate real entity called homogeneity (sabhagata), namely the mutual likeness among sentient beings; the root treatise calls this common sameness of beings. It is again of two kinds: first without distinction, second with distinction. Without distinction means the sameness of sentient beings as sentient beings, since all sentient beings are equally so. With distinction means the separate homogeneities of sentient beings by realm, ground, destiny, birth, lineage, male and female, lay devotee, monk, those in training and beyond training, and so on, since each class of sentient beings is equally so. There is also homogeneity of dharmas, namely that of aggregates, sense bases and elements. If there were no real entity called homogeneity, with or without distinction, then among sentient beings who are mutually distinct, the cognition and designation that sentient beings are alike as sentient beings should not occur. Thus the cognition and designation of equality in the aggregates and so on should likewise be understood according to reason. Is there a case of dying and being reborn without abandoning or obtaining the homogeneity of sentient beings? This should be answered with four alternatives. The first is where one dies and is reborn in the same place. The second is when one enters the state of certainty of the right path, abandoning the homogeneity of ordinary beings and obtaining the homogeneity of the noble. The third is dying in one destiny and being reborn in another, and so on. The fourth is the case other than the foregoing. If there were a separate real entity called the homogeneity of ordinary beings, what use would there be in separately establishing the state of ordinary beings? Because there is no separate human nature apart from the homogeneity of humans. Moreover, homogeneity is not seen in the world, because it is not form, nor can it be discerned by cognition, because it has no separate function. Although the world does not discern the homogeneity of sentient beings, it still regards sentient beings as undifferentiated, so even if it had a substance, what use would it be? And why do you not admit a homogeneity of non-sentient things? Grains, wheat, beans, gold, iron, mango and jackfruit also resemble their own kinds. And since homogeneities are mutually distinct, how could the cognition and designation of undifferentiated sameness arise in them without any further homogeneity? Furthermore, this would establish the position held by the Vaisheshikas, who hold that there is a category of universal sameness, from which the words and cognition of general sameness arise with regard to all dharmas. They also hold a category of sameness and difference, from which the words and cognition of sameness and difference arise among different classes. The Vaibhashikas say: Their view differs in kind from ours, because they say that one thing operates in many. Even if it is made clear or unclear there, this homogeneity must nonetheless be a real entity, because a sutra says so. As the World-Honored One said: If one returns here and obtains homogeneity with humans, and so on at length. Although this is said, it does not say that there is a separate real entity called homogeneity. If so, what is the homogeneity that is spoken of? It is that when formations of such a kind arise, human homogeneity and so on is provisionally established in them, just as with the homogeneity of grains, wheat and beans. This is not well said, because it contradicts my school. Homogeneity has been explained. What is the non-percipient state? The verse says:

無想無想中，心心所法滅，

In the non-percipient state, in the non-percipient gods, minds and mental factors cease,

異熟居廣果。

it is a result of maturation, dwelling in Brihatphala.

論曰：若生無想有情天中，有法能令心心所滅，名為無想。是實有物，能遮未來心心所法令暫不起，如堰江河。此法一向是異熟果。誰之異熟？謂無想定。無想有情居在何處？居在廣果，謂廣果天中有高勝處，如中間靜慮，名無想天。彼為恆無想、為亦有想耶？生死位中多時有想。言無想者，由彼有情中間長時想不起故。如契經說：彼諸有情由想起故從彼處沒，然彼有情如久睡覺還起於想，從彼沒已必生欲界非餘處所，先修定行勢力盡故、於彼不能更修定故，如箭射空力盡便墮。若諸有情應生彼處，必有欲界順後受業。如應生彼北俱盧洲，必定應有生天之業。已辯無想。二定者何？謂無想定及滅盡定。初無想定其相云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: If one is born among the non-percipient sentient gods, there is a dharma that causes minds and mental factors to cease, called non-percipience. It is a real entity that blocks future minds and mental factors so that they temporarily do not arise, like a dam on a river. This dharma is invariably a result of maturation. Whose maturation is it? It is the maturation of the non-percipient attainment. Where do the non-percipient sentient beings dwell? They dwell in Brihatphala, that is, in the Brihatphala heaven there is a high and excellent place, like the intermediate dhyana, called the non-percipient heaven. Are they always non-percipient there, or do they also have perception? During the interval of death and rebirth they have perception for much of the time. They are called non-percipient because for a long period perception does not arise in those sentient beings. As a sutra says: those sentient beings pass away from that place because perception arises; yet those beings, like one waking from a long sleep, again give rise to perception, and having passed away from there, they are necessarily reborn in the desire realm and no other place, because the power of their prior practice of the attainment is exhausted and they can no longer cultivate the attainment there, like an arrow shot into the sky which falls when its force is spent. If sentient beings are to be born there, they must have karma of the desire realm that ripens in a later life. Just as one who is to be born in Uttarakuru must definitely have karma leading to birth in the heavens. The non-percipient state has been explained. What are the two attainments? They are the non-percipient attainment and the attainment of cessation. How is the first, the non-percipient attainment, characterized? The verse says:

如是無想定，後靜慮求脫，

This non-percipient attainment is sought as liberation in the later dhyana,

善唯順生受，非聖得一世。

is only wholesome and ripens in the next life; it is not attained by noble ones, and is obtained in one lifetime.

論曰：如前所說有法能令心心所滅名為無想，如是復有別法能令心心所滅名無想定。無想者定名無想定，或定無想名無想定。說如是聲，唯顯此定滅心心所與無想同。此在何地？謂後靜慮，即在第四靜慮非餘。修無想定為何所求？謂求解脫。彼執無想是真解脫，為求證彼修無想定。前說無想是異熟故，無記性攝，不說自成。今無想定一向是善，此是善故，能招無想有情天中五蘊異熟。既是善性，為順何受？唯順生受，非順現後及不定受。若起此定後雖退失，傳說現身必還能起，當生無想有情天中，故得此定必不能入正性離生。又許此定唯異生得非諸聖者，以諸聖者於無想定如見深坑不樂入故。要執無想為真解脫，起出離想而修此定；一切聖者不執有漏為真解脫及真出離故，於此定必不修行。若諸聖者修得第四靜慮定時，為如靜慮亦得去來無想定不？餘亦不得。所以者何？彼雖曾習，以無心故，要大加行方便修得，故初得時唯得一世，謂得現在，如初受得別解脫戒。得此定已，第二念等乃至未捨亦成過去，以無心故，無未來修。次滅盡定其相云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: As stated above, there is a dharma that causes minds and mental factors to cease, called non-percipience; likewise there is another dharma that causes minds and mental factors to cease, called the non-percipient attainment. The attainment of non-perception is the non-percipient attainment, or the attainment in which perception is absent is called the non-percipient attainment. The word thus only shows that this attainment is like non-percipience in extinguishing minds and mental factors. In which ground is it? It is in the later dhyana, that is, the fourth dhyana and no other. For what purpose is the non-percipient attainment cultivated? It is for seeking liberation. Those who hold non-percipience to be true liberation cultivate the non-percipient attainment in order to realize it. It was said earlier that non-percipience is a result of maturation and is included in the neutral nature, so it was not said to be accomplished by itself. The non-percipient attainment, however, is invariably wholesome; because it is wholesome, it can bring about the five aggregates matured in the non-percipient sentient heaven. Since it is of a wholesome nature, which feeling does it lead to? It leads only to feeling in the next life, not to feeling in the present life, in a later life, or at an indefinite time. Even if one who has produced this attainment later loses it, it is said that in this very life he will certainly be able to produce it again and will be born in the non-percipient sentient heaven; therefore one who has obtained this attainment can certainly not enter the state of certainty of the right path. It is also admitted that only ordinary beings obtain this attainment and not noble ones, because noble ones regard the non-percipient attainment as a deep pit and take no pleasure in entering it. Only those who hold non-percipience to be true liberation and produce the thought of renunciation cultivate this attainment; since all noble ones do not regard the tainted as true liberation or true renunciation, they certainly do not practice this attainment. When noble ones cultivate and obtain the attainment of the fourth dhyana, do they also obtain a past and future non-percipient attainment, as they do with the dhyanas? They do not obtain it. Why? Although they have practiced it before, because it has no mental factors and can only be accomplished by great preparatory effort, at its first attainment they obtain it only for one time, namely the present, just as one first receives the individual liberation precepts. Once this attainment is obtained, from the second moment on, until it is abandoned, it also becomes past, but since it has no mental factors, there is no future cultivation. Next, how is the attainment of cessation characterized? The verse says:

滅盡定亦然，為靜住有頂，

The attainment of cessation is likewise, for tranquil abiding, at the Peak of Existence,

善二受不定，聖由加行得，

wholesome, with two feelings and indefinite; noble ones obtain it through preparatory effort,

成佛得非前，三十四念故。

a Buddha obtains it not earlier, because of thirty-four moments of thought.

論曰：如無想定，滅定亦然。此亦然聲，為例何義？例無想定心心所滅。如說復有別法能令心心所滅名無想定，如是復有別法能令心心所滅名滅盡定。如是二定差別相者，前無想定為求解脫，以出離想作意為先；此滅盡定為求靜住，以止息想作意為先。前無想定在後靜慮；此滅盡定唯在有頂，即是非想非非想處。此同前定，性唯是善非無記染，善等起故。前無想定唯順生受；此滅盡定通順生後及不定受，謂約異熟有順生受、或順後受、或不定受、或全不受。謂若於下得般涅槃，此定所招何地幾蘊？唯招有頂四蘊異熟。前無想定唯異生得；此滅盡定唯聖者得，非異生能起，怖畏斷滅故、唯聖道力所能起故、現法涅槃勝解入故。此亦如前，非離染得。由何而得？由加行得，要由加行方證得故。又初得時唯得現在，不得過去不修未來，要由心力方能修故。第二念等乃至未捨亦成過去。世尊亦以加行得耶？不爾。云何？成佛時得，謂佛世尊盡智時得，佛無一德由加行得，暫起欲樂現在前時，一切圓德隨樂而起，故佛眾德皆離染得。世尊曾未起滅盡定，得盡智時云何得成俱分解脫？於起滅定得自在故，如已起者成俱解脫。西方師說：菩薩學位先起此定後得菩提。云何此中不許彼說？若許彼說，便順尊者鄔波毱多《理目足論》。如彼論說：當言如來先起滅定、後生盡智。迦濕彌羅國毘婆沙師說：非前起滅定後方生盡智。所以者何？傳說菩薩三十四念得菩提故。諦現觀中有十六念，離有頂貪有十八念，謂斷有頂九品煩惱起九無間九解脫道，如是十八足前十六成三十四。一切菩薩決定先於無所有處已得離貪方入見道，不復須斷下地煩惱，於此中間無容得起不同類心，故諸菩薩學位不應起滅盡定。外國諸師作如是說：若中間起不同類心，斯有何過？若爾，便有越期心過。然諸菩薩不越期心。

The treatise says: Just as the non-percipient attainment, so too is the attainment of cessation. What meaning does the word likewise take as an example? It takes as an example the cessation of minds and mental factors in the non-percipient attainment. Just as it was said that another dharma that causes minds and mental factors to cease is called the non-percipient attainment, so there is another dharma that causes minds and mental factors to cease, called the attainment of cessation. The differences between these two attainments are these: the earlier non-percipient attainment is for seeking liberation and is preceded by the attention of renunciation-perception; this attainment of cessation is for seeking tranquil abiding and is preceded by the attention of calming perception. The earlier non-percipient attainment is in the later dhyana; this attainment of cessation is only at the Peak of Existence, that is, the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception. Like the earlier attainment, its nature is only wholesome and not neutral or defiled, because it arises from wholesome causes. The earlier non-percipient attainment leads only to feeling in the next life; this attainment of cessation extends to feeling in the next life, in a later life and at an indefinite time, that is, in terms of maturation it may be felt in the next life, or in a later life, or at an indefinite time, or not felt at all. If one attains parinirvana in a lower ground, which ground and how many aggregates does this attainment bring about? It brings about only the four aggregates matured at the Peak of Existence. The earlier non-percipient attainment is obtained only by ordinary beings; this attainment of cessation is obtained only by noble ones and cannot be produced by ordinary beings, because they fear annihilation, because it can only be produced by the power of the noble path, and because one enters it with the conviction of nirvana in this very life. This also is, as before, not obtained through detachment. By what is it obtained? It is obtained through preparatory effort, since it can only be realized through preparatory effort. Moreover, at its first attainment one obtains it only in the present, not in the past, and one does not cultivate the future, because it can only be cultivated by the power of mind. From the second moment on, until it is abandoned, it also becomes past. Does the World-Honored One also obtain it through preparatory effort? He does not. How then? He obtains it at the time he becomes a Buddha, that is, when the Buddha, the World-Honored One, obtains the knowledge of exhaustion; the Buddha has no virtue obtained through preparatory effort, and when he briefly arouses a wish, all perfect virtues arise at his pleasure, so all the virtues of the Buddha are obtained through detachment. The World-Honored One never produced the attainment of cessation; how, then, on obtaining the knowledge of exhaustion, did he become one liberated in both ways? Because he has mastery over arising from the attainment of cessation, he is like one who has already arisen from it and become liberated in both ways. The Western masters say: while a Bodhisattva is still in the stage of training, he first produces this attainment and afterward attains enlightenment. Why is that view not admitted here? If one admits their view, it would accord with the Venerable Upagupta's Treatise on the Feet of Principle. As that treatise says: It should be said that the Tathagata first produced the attainment of cessation and afterward gave rise to the knowledge of exhaustion. The Vaibhashikas of Kashmir say: It is not that he first produced the attainment of cessation and only afterward produced the knowledge of exhaustion. Why? It is said that a Bodhisattva attains enlightenment in thirty-four moments of thought. In the direct realization of the truths there are sixteen moments of thought, and in detachment from the Peak of Existence there are eighteen moments, that is, cutting off the nine grades of affliction of the Peak of Existence by producing nine paths of no interval and nine paths of liberation; these eighteen added to the earlier sixteen make thirty-four. All Bodhisattvas, without exception, first attain detachment in the sphere of nothingness and only then enter the path of seeing, and have no need to cut off the afflictions of the lower grounds again; in the interval there is no room for a mind of a different kind to arise, and so Bodhisattvas in the stage of training should not produce the attainment of cessation. Foreign masters say: What fault is there if a mind of a different kind arises in the interval? If so, there would be the fault of exceeding the appointed time. Yet Bodhisattvas do not exceed the appointed time.

理實菩薩不越期心，然非不越無漏聖道。若爾，期心如何不越？謂我未得諸漏永盡，終不解斯結加趺坐。決定不越如是期心，唯於一坐時諸事究竟故。前說為善，我所宗故。雖已說二定有多同異相，而於其中復有同異。頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) In truth a Bodhisattva does not exceed the appointed time, but it is not that he does not delay the untainted noble path. If so, how does he not exceed the appointed time? He resolves: Until I have attained the complete extinction of the outflows, I will not undo this cross-legged posture. He definitely does not exceed such an appointed time, because all matters are completed in a single sitting. What was said earlier is well said, because it accords with my school. Although the many similarities and differences of the two attainments have been explained, there are further similarities and differences among them. The verse says:

二定依欲色，滅定初人中。

The two attainments rely on the desire and form realms; the attainment of cessation first arises among humans.

論曰：言二定者，謂無想定及滅盡定。此二俱依欲色二界而得現起。若有不許亦依色界起無想定，便違此文。謂本論言：或有是色有，此有非五行。謂色纏有情或生有想天，住不同類心，若入無想定、若入滅盡定。或生無想天已得入無想，是謂是色有，此有非五行。由此證知，如是二定俱依欲色而得現起，是名同相。言異相者，謂無想定欲色二界皆得初起，滅定初起唯在人中。此在人中初修起已，由退為先方生色界，依色界身後復修起。此滅盡定亦有退耶？應言亦有。若不爾者，即便違害《鄔陀夷經》。經言：具壽！有諸苾芻先於此處具淨屍羅、具三摩地、具般羅若，能數入出滅受想定斯有是處。應如實知，彼於現法或臨終位，不能勤修令解滿足，從此身壞超段食天，隨受一處意成天身。於彼生已，復數入出滅受想定亦有是處。應如實知，此意成天身，佛說是色界，滅受想定唯在有頂。若得此定必無退者，如何得往色界受生？有餘部執：第四靜慮亦有滅定。依彼所執，滅定無退，此義亦成。第四靜慮有滅盡定，義必不成。所以者何？九次第定，契經說故。此若必然，如何得有超越定義？此定次第依初學說，得自在時隨樂超入。如是二定有多種異：謂地有異，第四靜慮有頂地故；加行有異，出離止息想，作意為先故；相續有異，異生聖者相續起故；異熟有異，無想有頂異熟果故；順受有異，順定不定生二受故；初起有異，二界人中最初起故。二定總以心心所滅為其自性，何緣但說名為無想、滅受想耶？二定加行中，唯厭逆此故，如亦知受等，唯名他心智。今二定中心久時斷，如何於後心復得生？毘婆沙師許過去有前心為後等無間緣。有餘師言：如生無色，色久時斷，如何於後色復得生？彼生定應由心非色，如是出定心亦應然，由有根身非由心起。故彼先代諸軌範師，鹹言二法互為種子。

The treatise says: The two attainments spoken of are the non-percipient attainment and the attainment of cessation. Both can be produced in reliance on the desire and form realms. If anyone does not admit that the non-percipient attainment can also be produced in reliance on the form realm, he contradicts this passage. That is, the root treatise says: There is a form existence, and this existence is not of five kinds of conduct. That is, a being of the form realm, or one born in a perceiving heaven, abiding in a mind of a different kind, enters the non-percipient attainment or enters the attainment of cessation; or one born in the non-percipient heaven has entered non-percipience. This is called a form existence that is not of five kinds of conduct. From this it is known that both attainments can be produced in reliance on the desire and form realms, and this is their common characteristic. As for the differing characteristics, the non-percipient attainment may first arise in either the desire or form realm, while the attainment of cessation first arises only among humans. After first cultivating and producing it among humans, one is born in the form realm by way of falling away from it, and relying on a body in the form realm, cultivates and produces it again. Can this attainment of cessation also be lost? It should be said that it can. If not, it would contradict the Udayin Sutra. The sutra says: Venerable one, there are monks who in this place were complete in morality, complete in concentration and complete in wisdom, and who could repeatedly enter and emerge from the attainment of the cessation of feeling and perception. It is possible that in the present life or at the time of death they cannot diligently cultivate to bring it to fulfillment; when their body breaks up, they pass beyond the gods who live on coarse food and are born in some place as a mind-made divine body. Having been born there, they can again repeatedly enter and emerge from the attainment of the cessation of feeling and perception. It should be truly known that this mind-made divine body is said by the Buddha to be of the form realm, and the attainment of the cessation of feeling and perception is only at the Peak of Existence. If one who has obtained this attainment could never lose it, how could he go to be born in the form realm? Some other schools hold that the fourth dhyana also has the attainment of cessation. According to their view, the attainment of cessation cannot be lost, and this meaning would also be established. But that the fourth dhyana has the attainment of cessation is certainly not established. Why? Because the sutras speak of the nine successive attainments. If that were so, how could there be the meaning of leaping over attainments? This sequence of attainments is spoken of in reliance on beginners; when one has mastery, one may leap over and enter at will. These two attainments have many differences: they differ in ground, since one is the fourth dhyana and the other the Peak of Existence; they differ in preparatory effort, since one is preceded by the attention of renunciation-perception and the other by calming perception; they differ in continuum, since they arise in the continuum of ordinary beings and of noble ones respectively; they differ in maturation, since one has the non-percipient result and the other the Peak of Existence result; they differ in the feeling they lead to, since one leads to the feeling of the next life and the other to feeling in the next life or indefinite; and they differ in first arising, since one first arises in two realms and the other among humans. The two attainments both take the cessation of minds and mental factors as their own nature; why are they only called the non-percipient and the cessation of feeling and perception? In the preparatory effort of the two attainments one is only weary of and opposed to these, just as feeling and so on are also known and yet it is only called the knowledge of others' minds. In these two attainments the mind is cut off for a long time; how can a later mind arise again? The Vaibhashikas admit that a past earlier mind is the immediately antecedent condition of the later one. Some other teachers say: just as when one is born in the formless realm, form is cut off for a long time, how can later form arise again? Their birth in the attainment must be from mind and not from form; likewise the mind on emerging from the attainment must also be from a body with faculties and not from mind. Therefore the earlier masters of old all said that two dharmas are mutually each other's seeds.

二法者，謂心、有根身。尊者世友問論中說：若執滅定全無有心，可有此過。我說滅定猶有細心，故無此失。尊者妙音說此非理。所以者何？若此定中猶有識者，三和合故必應有觸，由觸為緣應有受想。如世尊說：意及法為緣生於意識，三和合觸俱起受想思。則此定中受想等法亦應不滅。若謂如經說受緣愛，然阿羅漢雖有諸受而不生愛，觸亦應爾，非一切觸皆受等緣。此例不然，有差別故。經自簡言：若無明觸所生諸受為緣生愛。曾無有處簡觸生受，故有差別。由此道理，毘婆沙師說滅定中諸心皆滅。若都無心，如何名定？此令大種平等行故說名為定，或由心力平等至此故名為定。如是二定為是實有、為是假有？應言實有，能遮礙心令不生故。有說：此證理不應然，由前定心能遮礙故。謂前定心與所餘心相違而起，由此起故，唯令餘心暫時不轉。此能引發違心所依令相續故，唯不轉位假立為定，無別實體。此唯不轉分位假定，入前出後兩位皆無，故假說此是有為攝。或即所依由定心引令如是起，假立為定。應知無想亦復如是，謂由前心與所餘心相違而起，由此起故，唯令餘心暫時不轉，唯不轉位假立無想，餘說如前。此非善說，違我宗故。已辯二定。命根者何？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) The two dharmas are mind and the body with faculties. The Venerable Vasumitra said in the Treatise: If one holds that there is no mind at all in the attainment of cessation, this fault may exist. I say that there is still a subtle mind in the attainment of cessation, so there is no such fault. The Venerable Ghoshaka said this is not reasonable. Why? If consciousness is still present in this attainment, then because of the combination of the three there must be contact, and because of contact there should be feeling and perception. As the World-Honored One said: Thought and dharmas are the conditions for the arising of mind-consciousness, and the three combine as contact, which arises together with feeling, perception and volition. Then in this attainment feeling, perception and other dharmas should also not be extinguished. If you say that, as a sutra says, feeling conditions craving, yet arhats have feelings without giving rise to craving, then contact should likewise be so, and not all contact is the condition for feeling and so on. This example does not work, because there is a difference. The sutra itself specifies: feelings produced by contact with ignorance are the condition for the arising of craving. Nowhere does it specify that contact produces feeling, and so there is a difference. By this reasoning, the Vaibhashikas say that in the attainment of cessation all minds are extinguished. If there is no mind at all, how can it be called an attainment? It is called an attainment because it brings about the equal functioning of the great elements, or because the power of mind brings one to this state of equilibrium. Are these two attainments real or provisional? It should be said that they are real, because they can block mind so that it does not arise. Some say: this reasoning should not be so, because the mind of the earlier attainment blocks it. That is, the mind of the earlier attainment arises in opposition to the other minds, and because of its arising it only causes the other minds to temporarily not proceed. This can induce the basis that is opposed to mind to continue, and the attainment is only provisionally established in the state where mind does not proceed, with no separate substance. Because this is only a provisional attainment consisting of a condition of non-proceeding, and because it is absent in both the preceding entry and the following emergence, it is said provisionally to be included among the conditioned. Or else it is the basis itself, induced by the mind of attainment to arise in this way, and the attainment is provisionally established. It should be known that non-percipience is also like this, that is, because the mind of the earlier state arises in opposition to the other minds, it only causes the other minds to temporarily not proceed; non-percipience is provisionally established only in the state where they do not proceed, and the rest is as above. This is not well said, because it contradicts my school. The two attainments have been explained. What is the life faculty? The verse says:

命根體即壽，能持煖及識。

The substance of the life faculty is lifespan, which sustains warmth and consciousness.

論曰：命體即壽，故對法言：云何命根？謂三界壽。此復未了何法名壽？謂有別法能持煖識說名為壽。故世尊言：

The treatise says: The substance of life is lifespan, and so the Abhidharma says: What is the life faculty? It is lifespan in the three realms. But what dharma is it that is called lifespan? It is a separate dharma that sustains warmth and consciousness and is called lifespan. Therefore the World-Honored One said:

壽煖及與識，三法捨身時，

Lifespan, warmth and consciousness, when these three leave the body,

所捨身僵仆，如木無思覺。

the abandoned body lies stiff, like a log without thought or feeling.

故有別法，能持煖識相續住因說名為壽。若爾，此壽何法能持？即煖及識還持此壽。若爾，三法更互相持，相續轉故，何法先滅？由此滅故，餘二隨滅。是則此三應常無謝，既爾此壽應業能持，隨業所引相續轉故。若爾，何緣不許唯業能持煖識而須壽耶？理不應然，勿一切識從始至終恆異熟故。既爾，應言業能持煖，煖復持識，何須此壽？如是識在無色界中應無能持，彼無煖故。應言彼識業為能持，豈得隨情數為轉計？或說此識唯煖能持，或復說言唯業持識。又前已說。前說者何？謂前說言，勿一切識從始至終皆是異熟，是故定應許有別法，能持煖識說名為壽。今亦不言全無壽體，但說壽體非別實物。若爾，何法說名壽體？謂三界業所引同分住時勢分說為壽體。由三界業所引同分住時勢分相續決定隨應住時，爾所時住故，此勢分說為壽體。如穀種等所引乃至熟時勢分，又如放箭所引乃至住時勢分。有謂有行是德差別，依箭等生，由彼力故。乃至未墮恆行不息，彼體一故、無障礙故。往趣餘方急緩至時分位差別應不得有，又應畢竟無墮落時。若謂由風所障礙故，應初即墮或無墮時，能障礙風無差別故。有別實物能持煖識名為壽體，是說為善。為壽盡故死、為更有餘因？《施設論》說：有壽盡故死，非福盡故死。廣作四句。第一句者，感壽異熟業力盡故。第二句者，感富樂果業力盡故。第三句者，能感二種業俱盡故。第四句者，不能避脫抂橫緣故。又亦應言捨壽行故。壽盡位中，福盡於死無復功能，故俱盡時有死，說為俱盡故死。《發智論》說：此壽當言隨相續轉、為復當言一起便住？欲纏有情不入無想定、不入滅盡定，當言此壽隨相續轉。若入無想定、若入滅盡定及色無色纏一切有情，當言此壽一起便住。彼言何義？若所依身可損害故壽隨損害，是名第一隨相續轉。

(The treatise continues:) Therefore the separate dharma that is the cause for warmth and consciousness continuing to abide is called lifespan. If so, what dharma sustains this lifespan? Warmth and consciousness in turn sustain this lifespan. If so, the three dharmas sustain one another and continue to proceed; which of them ceases first? Because it ceases, the other two cease along with it. Then these three would be everlasting and never decay; and being so, this lifespan should be sustained by karma, since it proceeds as drawn by karma. If so, why do you not admit that karma alone sustains warmth and consciousness, so that lifespan is unnecessary? This is not reasonable, lest all consciousness from beginning to end be always a result of maturation. Since it is so, it should be said that karma sustains warmth, and warmth in turn sustains consciousness, so what need is there of this lifespan? Then consciousness in the formless realm would have nothing to sustain it, since there is no warmth there. It should be said that consciousness there is sustained by karma; how can one turn and calculate as one pleases? Or one says that this consciousness is sustained only by warmth, or again says that only karma sustains consciousness. Moreover, this was already refuted. What was said before? It was said earlier: lest all consciousness from beginning to end be a result of maturation, one must admit a separate dharma that sustains warmth and consciousness and is called lifespan. Now too we do not say that there is no substance of lifespan at all, but that the substance of lifespan is not a separate real thing. If so, what dharma is called the substance of lifespan? It is the potential for the homogeneity drawn by the karma of the three realms to abide for a time, which is called the substance of lifespan. Because the homogeneity drawn by the karma of the three realms is certain to abide for as long a time as it should abide, this potential is called the substance of lifespan. It is like the potential of a grain seed and so on, drawn forth until the time of ripening, or like the potential drawn by an arrow shot until the time it stops. Some say that there is a motion that is a distinct quality, arising in reliance on the arrow and so on because of the force imparted to it, and which continues to travel without ceasing until the arrow falls, since its substance is one and unobstructed. But then differences in the stages of swiftness and slowness in going to other places should not exist, and there would be no time of falling at all. If you say that it is because it is obstructed by wind, then it would fall at the very beginning or never fall, since the obstructing wind makes no difference. That there is a separate real thing that sustains warmth and consciousness and is called the substance of lifespan is said to be well put. Does one die because lifespan is exhausted, or is there some other cause? The Prajnapti Treatise says: There is dying because lifespan is exhausted, and not dying because merit is exhausted. It makes four alternatives at length. The first is because the power of the karma that brings about the maturation of lifespan is exhausted. The second is because the power of the karma that brings about the fruit of wealth and happiness is exhausted. The third is because the karma that brings about both is exhausted together. The fourth is because one cannot escape an untimely calamitous condition. Moreover, it should also be said that it is because of abandoning the life formations. In the state in which lifespan is exhausted, the exhaustion of merit no longer has any capacity regarding death, and so when both are exhausted there is death, which is said to be dying because both are exhausted. The Jnanaprasthana says: Should this lifespan be said to proceed in continuity, or should it be said to abide from the moment it arises? Sentient beings of the desire realm who have not entered the non-percipient attainment or the attainment of cessation: it should be said that this lifespan proceeds in continuity. If they have entered the non-percipient attainment or the attainment of cessation, or are sentient beings of the form and formless realms, it should be said that this lifespan abides from the moment it arises. What does this mean? If the body that is its basis can be harmed, lifespan is harmed along with it; this is called the first, proceeding in continuity.

若所依身不可損害如起而住，是名第二一起便住。迦濕彌羅國毘婆沙師言：初顯有障，後顯無障，由此決定有非時死。故契經說：有四得自體，謂有得自體唯可自害非可他害。廣作四句。唯可自害非他害者，謂生欲界戲忘念天意憤恚天，彼由發起增上喜怒，是故於彼殞沒非餘。又應說諸佛自般涅槃故。唯可他害非自害者，謂處胎卵諸有情類。俱可害者，謂餘多分欲界有情。俱非害者，謂在中有、色無色界一切有情及在欲界一分有情，如那落迦、北俱盧洲、正住見道、慈定、滅定及無想定，王仙、佛使，佛所記別——達弭羅、嗢怛羅、殑耆羅、長者子耶舍、鳩磨羅時婆——，最後身菩薩，及此菩薩母懷菩薩胎時，一切轉輪王及此輪王母懷輪王胎時。若爾，何故契經中言：大德！何等有情所得自體非可自害非可他害。舍利子！謂在非想非非想處受生有情。傳說所餘無色靜慮所得自體，可為自地聖道所害，亦上他地近分所害。有頂自上二害俱無，是故說為俱非可害。豈不有頂亦為他地聖道所害，應名他害？如是應說舉後顯初，如或有處舉初顯後，或復有處舉後顯初。云何有處舉初顯後？如契經說：如梵眾天是名第一樂生天。云何有處舉後顯初？如契經說：如極光淨天是名第二樂生天。彼經如聲顯譬喻義，可作是說舉一顯餘，喻法舉一顯同類故。此無如聲，不可例彼。若顯喻義方得有，如聲是則如聲，餘經應不有。如餘經說：有色有情身異想異，如人一分，天是第一識住。故知非喻亦有如聲。傍論且止。已辯命根，諸相者何？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) If the body that is the basis cannot be harmed and remains as it arose, this is called the second, abiding from the moment it arises. The Vaibhashikas of Kashmir say: the first shows that there is obstruction, and the latter shows that there is none; from this it is certain that there is untimely death. Therefore a sutra says: There are four ways of obtaining a self-existence: first, a self-existence that can be harmed only by oneself and not by others. It makes four alternatives at length. That which can be harmed only by oneself and not by others is, for example, those born in the desire realm among the gods of playful forgetfulness and the gods of angry minds; because they give rise to excessive joy or anger, they perish there for that reason and no other. It should also be said that Buddhas enter parinirvana of their own will. That which can be harmed only by others and not by oneself is, for example, those sentient beings who are in the womb or in the egg. That which can be harmed by both is, for example, most other sentient beings of the desire realm. That which can be harmed by neither is, for example, those in the intermediate existence and all sentient beings of the form and formless realms, and some sentient beings in the desire realm, such as those in the hells and Uttarakuru, and those abiding in the path of seeing, the attainment of loving-kindness, the attainment of cessation and the non-percipient attainment, royal sages, those sent by the Buddha, those whom the Buddha predicted, namely Dharmila, Uttara, Gangila, the elder's son Yashas and Kumarajiva, the Bodhisattva in his last body, and the mother of this Bodhisattva while she carries the Bodhisattva in her womb, and all wheel-turning kings and the mother of a wheel-turning king while she carries him in her womb. If so, why does a sutra say: Venerable one, what sentient beings obtain a self-existence that can be harmed neither by oneself nor by others? Shariputra, those sentient beings born in the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception. It is said that the self-existence obtained in the other formless and dhyana grounds can be harmed by the noble path of their own ground and also by the access of higher and other grounds. At the Peak of Existence neither is possible from above or from itself, and so it is said to be harmed by neither. But is the Peak of Existence not also harmed by the noble path of other grounds, so that it should be called harmed by others? Thus it should be said that the latter is mentioned to show the former, just as in some places the former is mentioned to show the latter. How is the former mentioned in some places to show the latter? As a sutra says: Like the gods of the Brahma assembly, this is called the first happy birth heaven. How is the latter mentioned in some places to show the former? As a sutra says: Like the gods of Abhasvara, this is called the second happy birth heaven. The word like in that sutra shows the meaning of an analogy, and one may say that mentioning one shows the others, since in an analogy mentioning one shows its like. This passage has no word like, so it cannot be compared with that. If the meaning of an analogy could be shown only where there is the word like, then the word like would not occur in other sutras. As another sutra says: There are sentient beings with form, whose bodies are different and whose perceptions are different, like humans and some gods; this is the first station of consciousness. So it is known that an analogy need not have the word like. This digression may rest here. The life faculty has been explained. What are the characteristics? The verse says:

相謂諸有為，生住異滅性。

The characteristics of all the conditioned are the natures of arising, abiding, change and cessation.

論曰：由此四種是有為相，法若有此應是有為，與此相違是無為法。此於諸法能起名生，能安名住，能衰名異，能壞名滅。性是體義。豈不經說有三有為之有為相？於此經中應說有四，不說者何？所謂住相。然經說住異，是此異別名。如生名起，滅名為盡。如是應知，異名住異。若法令行三世遷流，此經說為有為之相，令諸有情生厭畏故。謂彼諸行生力所遷，令從未來流入現在。異及滅相力所遷迫，令從現在流入過去，令其衰異及壞滅故。傳說如有人處稠林，有三怨敵欲為損害，一從稠林牽之令出、一衰其力、一壞命根。三相於行應知亦爾。住於彼行攝受安立，常樂與彼不相捨離，故不立在有為相中。又無為法有自相住，住相濫彼故經不說。有謂：此經說住與異總合為一名住異相。何用如是總合說為？住是有情所愛著處，為令厭捨與異合說，如示黑耳與吉祥俱，是故定有四有為相。此生等相既是有為，應更別有生等四相。若更有相便致無窮，彼復有餘生等相故。應言更有，然非無窮。所以者何？頌曰：

The treatise says: These four are the characteristics of the conditioned; if a dharma has these, it should be conditioned, and what is contrary to this is an unconditioned dharma. Among dharmas, that which can cause them to arise is called arising, that which can make them stay is called abiding, that which can make them decline is called change, and that which can destroy them is called cessation. Nature means substance. Does a sutra not speak of three characteristics of the conditioned? In this sutra there should be four; why is it not said which is missing? It is the characteristic of abiding. However, the sutra speaks of abiding-change, which is another name for change here, as arising is called rising and cessation is called ending. So it should be known that change is called abiding-change. If a dharma causes formations to drift through the three times, this sutra calls it the characteristic of the conditioned, because it makes sentient beings feel weariness and fear. That is, the power of arising carries those formations, making them flow from the future into the present. The power of change and cessation presses them, making them flow from the present into the past, causing them to decline, change and be destroyed. It is said that it is like a man in a thick forest with three enemies who wish to harm him: one drags him out of the forest, one weakens his strength, and one destroys his life faculty. The three characteristics of formations should be known to be likewise. Abiding takes hold of and establishes those formations; since one constantly delights in it and does not wish to be separated from it, it is not established among the characteristics of the conditioned. Moreover, the unconditioned dharmas also have a characteristic of abiding by their own nature, and the characteristic of abiding would be confused with that, so the sutra does not speak of it. Some say: this sutra speaks of abiding and change combined as one characteristic called abiding-change. Abiding is where sentient beings are attached and attracted; to make them feel weariness and abandon it, it is spoken of together with change, as one shows a black-eared one together with an auspicious one. Therefore there are definitely four characteristics of the conditioned. Since these characteristics of arising and so on are themselves conditioned, there should be further four characteristics of arising and so on. If there were further characteristics, it would lead to infinite regress, because those would again have their own arising and so on. It should be said that there are further ones, but it is not infinite. Why? The verse says:

此有生生等，於八一有能。

These have secondary arising and so on; of the eight, one has the capacity.

論曰：此謂前說四種本相。生生等者，謂四隨相，生生、住住、異異、滅滅。諸行有為由四本相，本相有為由四隨相，豈不本相如所相法一一應有四種隨相，此復各四展轉無窮？無斯過失，四本四隨於八於一功能別故。何謂功能？謂法作用或謂士用。四種本相一一皆於八法有用，四種隨相一一皆於一法有用。其義云何？謂法生時並其自體九法俱起，自體為一相隨相八。本相中生除其自性生餘八法，隨相生生於九法內唯生本生。謂如雌雞，有生多子有唯生一。生與生生，生八生一其力亦爾。本相中住亦除自性住餘八法，隨相住住於九法中唯住本住。異及滅相隨應亦爾。是故生等相復有相，隨相唯四無無窮失。經部師說何緣如是分析虛空？非生等相有實法體如所分別。所以者何？無定量故。謂此諸相非如色等有定現、比或至教量證體實有。若爾，何故契經中言：有為之起亦可了知，盡及住異亦可了知。天愛！汝等執文迷義，薄伽梵說義是所依。何謂此經所說實義？謂愚夫類無明所盲，於行相續執我我所，長夜於中而生耽著。世尊為斷彼執著故，顯行相續體是有為及緣生性，故作是說有三有為之有為相，非顯諸行一剎那中具有三相，由一剎那起等三相不可知故。非不可知應立為相，故彼契經復作是說：有為之起亦可了知，盡及住異亦可了知。然經重說有為言者，令知此相表是有為，勿謂此相表有為有，如居白鷺表水非無。亦勿謂表有為善惡，如童女相表善非善。諸行相續初起名生，終盡位中說名為滅，中間相續隨轉名住，此前後別名為住異。世尊依此說難陀言：是善男子善知受生、善知受住及善知受衰異壞滅。故說頌言：

The treatise says: This refers to the four primary characteristics spoken of earlier. "Birth of birth" and the rest are what are called the four secondary characteristics: birth-of-birth, abiding-of-abiding, change-of-change, and ceasing-of-ceasing. Conditioned phenomena are conditioned through the four primary characteristics, and the primary characteristics are themselves conditioned through the four secondary characteristics. Then would not each primary characteristic, like the thing it characterizes, need four secondary characteristics, and each of those again four more, so that it goes on without end? There is no such fault, because the four primary and the four secondary differ in function with respect to eight and to one. What is meant by function? It means the activity of a dharma, or what is called its personal operation. Each of the four primary characteristics has an effect on eight dharmas, and each of the four secondary characteristics has an effect on one dharma. How so? When a dharma arises, together with its own substance nine dharmas arise at once: the substance is one, the primary characteristic is one, and the secondary characteristics are eight. Among the primary characteristics, birth gives birth to the other eight dharmas apart from its own nature, while the birth-of-birth, among the nine dharmas, gives birth only to the primary birth. It is like a hen, of which one may say that some lay many chicks and some produce only one. Such is the power of birth and of birth-of-birth, the one giving birth to eight and the other to one. Likewise among the primary characteristics, abiding makes the other eight dharmas abide apart from its own nature, while abiding-of-abiding, among the nine, makes only the primary abiding abide. Change and ceasing, with their secondary characteristics, should be understood in the same way. Therefore the characteristics of birth and the rest have further characteristics, but the secondary characteristics are only four, and there is no fault of infinite regress. The Sautrantika master says: Why do you analyze empty space in this way? The characteristics of birth and the rest do not have a real substance as you distinguish them. Why? Because there is no fixed means of valid knowledge. That is, these characteristics are not like form and the like, whose real existence can be proved by fixed means of knowledge such as direct perception, inference, or scriptural authority. If so, why does the sutra say: The arising of the conditioned can be known, its passing away can be known, and its abiding and change can be known? Beloved of the gods, you cling to the text and are confused about the meaning. The Bhagavan said that the meaning is what one should rely on. What, then, is the true meaning of this sutra? It is that foolish ordinary people, blinded by ignorance, grasp at a self and what belongs to a self in the continuity of phenomena, and through the long night become attached to them. In order to cut off their attachment, the World-Honored One showed that the continuity of phenomena is by nature conditioned and arisen from conditions, and for this reason he spoke of three characteristics of the conditioned. He did not mean to show that all three characteristics are present together in a single moment, because it is not possible to know three characteristics such as arising in one single moment. What cannot be known should not be established as a characteristic, and so that same sutra goes on to say: The arising of the conditioned can be known, its passing away can be known, and its abiding and change can be known. Yet the sutra repeats the word "conditioned" in order to let us know that these characteristics are signs of the conditioned; one should not suppose that these characteristics indicate the existence of the conditioned, as the presence of egrets is taken as a sign of water, as though water would not exist without them. Nor should one suppose that they indicate that the conditioned is good or bad, as the features of a young girl are taken as a sign of what is good or not good. The first arising of a continuity of phenomena is called birth; the position of its final exhaustion is called ceasing; the continuing and flowing on in between is called abiding; and the difference between earlier and later in that abiding is called change. Relying on this, the World-Honored One said to Nanda: That good man knows well the arising of sensation, knows well the abiding of sensation, and knows well the decline, change, destruction and ceasing of sensation. Therefore a verse says:

相續初名生，滅謂終盡位，

The first moment of a continuity is called birth; ceasing is its final position of exhaustion;

中隨轉名住，住異前後別。

flowing on in between is called abiding; change is the difference between earlier and later.

復有頌言：

Another verse says:

本無今有生，相續隨轉住，

What was not before and now is, is birth; flowing on in continuity is abiding;

前後別住異，相續斷名滅。

the difference between earlier and later is change; the cutting off of the continuity is ceasing.

又有頌言：

Yet another verse says:

由諸法剎那，無住而有滅，

Because all dharmas are momentary, there is ceasing without abiding;

彼自然滅故，執有住非理。

since they cease of themselves, to hold that there is abiding is not reasonable.

是故唯於相續說住，由斯對法所說理成。故彼論言：云何名住？謂一切行已生未滅，非生已不滅名剎那法性。雖《發智論》作如是說：於一心中誰起謂生？誰盡謂死？誰住異謂老？而彼論文依眾同分相續心說，非一剎那。又一一剎那諸有為法，離執實有物，四相亦成。云何得成？謂一一念本無今有名生，有已還無名滅，後後剎那嗣前前起名為住，即彼前後有差別故名住異。於前後念相似生時，前後相望非無差別。彼差別相云何應知？謂金剛等有擲未擲，及強力擲與弱力擲，速遲墮落時差別故。大種轉變差別義成。諸行相似相續生時，前後相望無多差別，故雖有異而見相似。若爾最後聲光剎那及涅槃時，最後六處無後念故應無住異，是則所立相應不遍有為。此不說住為有為相。其義云何？謂住之異。故若有住亦必有異，由此立相無不遍失。然此經中世尊所說，有為之相略顯示者，謂有為法本無今有，有已還無及相續住。即此前後相望別異，此中何用生等別物？云何所相法即立為能相？如何大士相非異於大士？角犎𩑶蹄尾牛相非異牛，又如堅等地等界相非異地等，遠見上升知是煙相非異煙體。此有為相，理亦應然。雖了有為色等自性，乃至未了先無後無相續差別，仍未知彼體是有為，故非彼性即有為相。然非離彼性，有生等實物。若離有為色等自性有生等物，復何非理？一法一時應即生住衰異壞滅，許俱有故。此難不然，用時別故，謂生作用在於未來，現在已生不更生故。諸法生已正現在時，住等三相作用方起，非生用時有餘三用，故雖俱有而不相違。且應思擇，未來法體為有為無，然後可成生於彼位有用無用。設許未來生有作用，如何成未來？應說未來相。法現在時生用已謝，如何成現在？應說現在相。又住等三用俱現在，應一法體一剎那中即有安住衰異壞滅。

(The treatise continues:) Therefore abiding is spoken of only with respect to the continuity, and in this way the principle taught in the Abhidharma is established. Hence that treatise says: What is abiding? It is all conditioned phenomena that have arisen and not yet ceased; it is not the nature of a moment that has arisen but does not cease. Although the Jnanaprasthana says: In a single mind, who arises, which is called birth? Who passes away, which is called death? Who abides and changes, which is called old age? That text speaks in reference to the continuity of mind of a group of beings of the same class, not to a single moment. Furthermore, for every conditioned dharma in each moment, without clinging to the existence of real entities, the four characteristics are also established. How are they established? In each single thought, what was not before and now is, is called birth; what has been and again is not, is called ceasing; the succession of later moments following earlier ones is called abiding; and the difference between earlier and later moments is called change. When similar moments arise in succession, there is not no difference between earlier and later. How should that difference be known? It is like a diamond and the like thrown or not yet thrown, thrown with great force or with weak force, and from the difference in the speed or slowness of its fall. In this way the meaning of the differing transformations of the great elements is established. When phenomena arise in similar continuity, there is not much difference between earlier and later, so although there is change we see similarity. If so, at the final moment of sound and of light, and at the time of nirvana, the last six sense bases have no subsequent thought, so they should have no abiding or change, and then the characteristics you set up would not cover all conditioned things. Here abiding is not said to be a characteristic of the conditioned. What is the meaning? It is the change of abiding. Therefore wherever there is abiding there is necessarily change, and thus the establishing of characteristics has no fault of failing to be universal. Moreover, in the sutra, what the World-Honored One said as a brief demonstration of the characteristics of the conditioned is this: conditioned dharmas were not before and now are; having been, they again are not; and they abide in continuity. It is precisely the difference between earlier and later that is meant here; what need is there for separate entities such as birth and the rest? How can the thing characterized be set up as its own characterizing mark? How is a great person's mark not different from the great person? The horn, hump, dewlap, hoof and tail marks of an ox are not different from the ox. Likewise the marks of earth and the other elements, such as solidity, are not different from earth and the others, and the smoke seen far off rising upward, by which we know fire, is not different from the substance of smoke. The characteristics of the conditioned should be understood in the same way. Even if one understands the own-nature of conditioned things such as form, until one understands the difference between the former non-existence, the later non-existence, and the continuity, one still does not know that their substance is conditioned; so their nature itself is not the characteristic of the conditioned. Yet it is not that there are real entities of birth and the rest apart from that nature. If, apart from the own-nature of conditioned things such as form, there were entities such as birth, what would be unreasonable about that? One dharma at one time would then be born, abide, decline, change, be destroyed and cease at once, since you admit they are simultaneous. This objection does not hold, because the times of their operation differ: the operation of birth lies in the future, and what has already been born in the present is not born again. Only when dharmas have been born and are actually present does the operation of the three characteristics of abiding and the rest begin; it is not that when birth is operating the other three operate too, so although they are simultaneous in existence they do not conflict. Moreover, one should first consider whether the substance of a future dharma exists or does not exist, and only then can it be established whether birth has an operation or not at that stage. If you allow that future birth has an operation, how is it future? You should then call it a present characteristic. If, when a dharma is present, the operation of birth has already lapsed, how is it present? You should then call it a past characteristic. And if the three operations of abiding and the rest are all present, then one single dharma would in a single moment be abiding, declining, changing, being destroyed and ceasing.

若時住相能住此法，即時異滅能衰壞者，爾時此法為名安住、為名衰異、為名壞滅？諸說住等用不同時，彼說便違剎那滅義。若言我說一法諸相用，皆究竟名一剎那。汝今應說，何緣住相與二俱生，而住先能住所住法非異非滅？若住力強能先用者，後何成劣而並本法俱遭異滅所衰壞耶？若言住相已起作用不應更起猶如生者，生應可然。夫生用者，謂引所生令入現在，已入不應復引入故。住不應爾。夫住用者，謂安所住令不衰滅，已住可令永安住故。由斯住相用應常起，不可例生令無再用。又誰障住用，令暫有還無？若言異滅能為障者，異滅力應強，何不於先用？又住用息，異滅本法自然不住，異滅二相何處如何而起作用？復有何事須二用耶？由住攝持，諸法生已暫時不滅。住用既捨，法定不住即自然滅，故異滅用更無所為。又應一法生已未壞名住，住已壞時名滅。理且可然。異於一法，進退推徵理不應有。所以者何？異謂前後性相轉變，非即此法可言異此。故說頌言：

(The treatise continues:) If at the time the characteristic of abiding is able to make this dharma abide, the characteristics of change and ceasing are able to decline and destroy it, then at that time is this dharma called abiding, or called declining and changing, or called destroyed? Those who say the operations of abiding and the rest are not simultaneous contradict the meaning of momentary ceasing. If you say that, in my view, the operations of the characteristics of one dharma are all called a single moment in the final sense, then you must now say why the characteristic of abiding arises together with the other two, and why abiding, being first able to make the dharma abide, does not make it neither change nor cease. If the power of abiding is strong and acts first, how does it afterward become weak, so that it and the original dharma are both declined and destroyed by change and ceasing? If you say that once the characteristic of abiding has produced its operation it should not operate again, as with birth, then birth might be like that. The operation of birth is to draw what is to be born into the present, and what has already entered the present is not drawn in again. Abiding is not so. The operation of abiding is to make what abides secure so that it does not decline or cease, and what already abides can be made secure forever. Therefore the operation of the characteristic of abiding should always arise, and one cannot take birth as a model and say it has no further operation. Moreover, who obstructs the operation of abiding, so that it briefly exists and then ceases? If you say change and ceasing obstruct it, then the power of change and ceasing should be stronger, so why do they not operate first? And when the operation of abiding stops, the original dharma naturally does not abide of itself, so where, and how, do the two characteristics of change and ceasing operate? What further need is there for their two operations? Through the sustaining of abiding, dharmas that have been born do not cease for a time. Once the operation of abiding is given up, the dharma certainly does not abide and ceases of itself, so the operations of change and ceasing have nothing more to do. Furthermore, it would be reasonable to say that a dharma that has arisen and not yet been destroyed is called abiding, and that when it has abiding and is destroyed it is called ceasing; that much is acceptable. But as for change in a single dharma, on examination forward and backward there is no reason for it. Why? Change means the transformation of nature and characteristics between earlier and later; the same dharma cannot be said to differ from itself. Therefore a verse says:

即前異不成，異前非一法，

If the same as before, change is not established; if different from before, it is not one dharma;

是故於一法，立異終不成。

therefore, in one dharma, the establishing of change can never succeed.

雖餘部說遇滅因緣，滅相方能滅所滅法。而彼所說，應如有言：服瀉藥時天來令利。即滅因緣應滅所滅，何須別執有滅相為。又心心所許剎那滅，更不須待餘滅因緣，應滅與住用無先後。是則一法於一時中亦住亦滅不應正理，故依相續說有為相，不違正理善順契經。若生在未來生所生法，未來一切法何不俱生？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) Although other schools say that when the conditions for ceasing are met, the characteristic of ceasing is then able to make the dharma cease, what they say is like saying: When one takes a purgative, Heaven comes and makes it work. If the conditions of ceasing can cause what is to cease to cease, what need is there to cling to a separate characteristic of ceasing? Moreover, mind and mental factors are admitted to cease moment by moment and need not wait for any other conditions of ceasing, so ceasing and abiding would have no priority between them. It would then follow that one dharma both abides and ceases at the same time, which does not accord with right reason. Therefore, speaking of the characteristics of the conditioned in reference to the continuity does not contradict right reason and agrees well with the sutras. If birth, in the future, gives birth to what is to be born, why do not all future dharmas arise at once? A verse says:

生能生所生，非離因緣合。

Birth gives birth to what is born, but not apart from the union of causes and conditions.

論曰：非離所餘因緣和合，唯生相力能生所生，故諸未來非皆頓起。若爾，我等唯見因緣有生功能，無別生相。有因緣合諸法即生，無即不生，何勞生相？故知唯有因緣力起。豈諸有法皆汝所知？法性幽微甚難知故，雖現有體而不可知。生相若無應無生覺，又第六轉言不應成，謂色之生、受之生等。如不應說色之色言。如責無生，乃至無滅皆如是責，隨其所應。若爾，為成空無我覺，法外應執空無我性。為成一二大小各別合離彼此有性等覺，應如外道法外執有數量各別合離彼此有等別性。又為成立第六轉言，應執別有色之聚性。又如說言色之自性，此第六轉言何得成？是故生等唯假建立，無別實物，為了諸行本無今有假立為生。如是本無今有生相，依色等法種類眾多，為簡所餘說第六轉言色之生受之生等，為令他知此生唯色非餘受等。餘例亦然。如世間說栴檀之香、石子之體，此亦應爾。如是住等隨應當知。若行離生相而得生者，虛空無為等何故不生？諸行名生由本無今有，無為體常有，何得言生？又如法爾不說一切皆有生，如是應許非一切法皆可生。又如有為同有生相，而許因緣望有為法或有功能或無功能。如是應許一切有為及無為法同無生相，而諸因緣望彼二法一有生用、一無生用。毘婆沙師說生等相別有實物，其理應成。所以者何？豈容多有設難者故便棄所宗？非恐有鹿而不種麥，懼多蠅附不食美團。故於過難應懃通釋，於本宗義應順修行。如是已辯諸有為相。名身等類其義云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: It is not apart from the union of the other causes and conditions that the power of the characteristic of birth alone gives birth to what is born; therefore future dharmas do not all arise suddenly. If so, we see only that causes and conditions have the capacity to give rise; we do not see a separate characteristic of birth. When causes and conditions come together dharmas are born, and when they do not, they are not born; what need is there for the characteristic of birth? So we know that things arise only by the power of causes and conditions. Is everything that exists known to you? The nature of dharmas is subtle and extremely hard to know, so although they exist with a substance they cannot be known. If there were no characteristic of birth, there would be no awareness of birth, and also the sixth case-ending could not be established, as in "the birth of form" and "the birth of feeling." It would be like saying one cannot say "the form of form." If you reproach us for having no birth, then the same reproach would apply all the way to having no ceasing, in each as appropriate. If so, to establish the awareness of emptiness and selflessness, you would have to cling to a nature of emptiness and selflessness apart from the dharmas. To establish the awareness of one and two, large and small, separate and combined, this and that, and so on, you would have to cling, like the non-Buddhists, to a separate nature of number, quantity, separateness, conjunction, this and that apart from the dharmas. And to establish the sixth case-ending you would have to cling to a separate aggregate nature of form as a heap. Again, when one says "the own-nature of form," how could this sixth case-ending be established? Therefore birth and the rest are only provisionally set up, and there is no separate real entity; to point out that conditioned things were not before and now are, one provisionally establishes birth. Thus the characteristic of birth, "not before and now is," depends on many kinds of dharmas such as form, and in order to distinguish it from the others one uses the sixth case-ending and says "the birth of form," "the birth of feeling," and so on, to let others know that this birth is only of form and not of feeling and the rest. The other cases are to be treated likewise. As in the world one says "the fragrance of sandalwood" and "the body of a stone," so here too. In the same way abiding and the rest should be understood. If conditioned things could be born apart from the characteristic of birth, why do space and the unconditioned not arise? Conditioned things are called born because they were not before and now are, while the unconditioned has a substance that is constant and existent, so how can one say it is born? Also, since by the nature of things it is not said that all arise, so one should allow that not all dharmas can be born. Again, as conditioned things all share the characteristic of birth, yet you allow that causes and conditions have some capacity in respect of some conditioned things and no capacity in respect of others, so too one should allow that all conditioned and unconditioned dharmas alike lack a characteristic of birth, and that causes and conditions have the operation of birth toward one of the two and not toward the other. The Vaibhasika masters say that birth and the other characteristics are separate real entities, and their reasoning should be accepted. Why? Is it permissible to abandon one's tenets just because many objections can be raised? One does not refrain from sowing wheat for fear of deer, nor refuse to eat fine food for fear that many flies will settle on it. Therefore one should diligently resolve difficulties and explain them, and practice in accord with the meaning of one's own tradition. Thus the characteristics of the conditioned have been explained. What is the meaning of the "name-group" and the like? A verse says:

名身等所謂，想章字總說。

Name-group and the like are called conception, section and syllable in general.

論曰：等者等取句身文身。應知此中名謂作想，如說色聲香味等想。句者謂章，詮義究竟，如說諸行無常等章。或能辯了業用德時相應差別，此章稱句。文者謂字，如說𧙃阿壹伊等字。豈不此字亦書分名？非為顯書分製造諸字，但為顯諸字製造書分。云何當令雖不聞說而亦得解，故造書分，是故諸字非書分名。云何名等身？謂想等總說。言總說者是合集義，於合集義中說嗢遮界故。此中名身者，謂色聲香等。句身者，謂諸行無常、一切法無我、涅槃寂靜等。文身者，謂迦佉伽等。豈不此三語為性故，用聲為體，色自性攝。如何乃說為心不相應行？此三非以語為自性，語是音聲，非唯音聲即令了義。云何令了？謂語發名，名能顯義，乃能令了。非但音聲皆稱為語，要由此故義可了知，如是音聲方稱語故。何等音聲令義可了？謂能說者於諸義中已共立為能詮定量，且如古者於九義中共立一瞿聲為能詮定量。故有頌言：

The treatise says: "And the like" includes sentence-group and syllable-group. One should know that here "name" means that which produces conception, as when one speaks of the conceptions of form, sound, smell, taste and so on. "Sentence" means a section, which explains a meaning to completion, as in the sections "All conditioned things are impermanent." Or it is what can distinguish the particular correspondences of action, function, quality and time; such a section is called a sentence. "Syllable" means a letter, as when one speaks of the letters a, i, i and so on. Is it not also true that a letter is called a part of writing? The letters were not made in order to show writing; rather writing was made in order to show the letters. How can one make people understand even when they have not heard it spoken? Hence writing was made, and therefore letters are not called writing. How is "group" in "name-group" and the like explained? It means a general statement of conception and the rest. "General statement" has the meaning of collection, and in the meaning of collection it is spoken of through the "udana" division. Here the "name-group" refers to form, sound, smell and the like; the "sentence-group" refers to such as "All conditioned things are impermanent, all dharmas are without self, nirvana is quiescent"; the "syllable-group" refers to ka, kha, ga and so on. Is it not that these three, because speech is their nature, take sound as their substance, and are included in the own-nature of form? Why, then, are they said to be conditioned factors not associated with mind? These three do not have speech as their own-nature; speech is sound, and not every sound causes understanding of meaning. How does it cause understanding? Speech brings forth names, names can show meanings, and so understanding is produced. Not all sounds are called speech; it is because a meaning can be known through it that such a sound is called speech. What kinds of sounds make a meaning understood? Those that, among various meanings, have been jointly established as the fixed standard of expression; for example, in ancient times the sound "go" was jointly established as the fixed standard of expression for nine meanings. Therefore a verse says:

方獸地光言，金剛眼天水，

Direction, beast, earth, light, speech, thunderbolt, eye, heaven, and water:

於斯九種義，智者立瞿聲。

for these nine kinds of meaning, the wise establish the sound "go."

諸有執名能顯義者，亦定應許如是義名，謂共立為能詮定量。若此句義由名能顯，但由音聲顯用已辦，何須橫計別有實名？又未了此名，如何由語發，為由語顯、為由語生？若由語生，語聲性故，聲應一切皆能生名。若謂生名聲有差別，此足顯義，何待別名？若由語顯，語聲性故，聲應一切皆能顯名。若謂顯名，聲有差別，此足顯義，何待別名？又諸念聲不可聚集，亦無一法分分漸生，如何名生可由語發？云何待過去諸表剎那？最後表剎那能生無表。若爾，最後位聲乃生名，但聞最後聲應能了義。若作是執：語能生文、文復生名、名方顯義。此中過難應同前說，以諸念文不可集故。語顯名過，應例如生。又異語文，諸明慧者注心思擇莫辯其相。又文由語若顯若生，準語於名皆不應理。又若有執：名如生等與義俱生，現在世名目去來義不應得有。又父母等隨意所欲立子等名，云何可言名如生等與義俱起？又無為法應無有名，無生義故而不應許。然世尊說頌依於名及文生者，此於諸義共立分量。聲即是名，此名安布差別為頌。由如是義，說頌依名。此頌是名安布差別，執有實物不應正理，如樹等行及心次第。或唯應執別有文體，即總集此為名等身。更執有餘便為無用。毘婆沙師說有別物為名等身，心不相應行蘊所攝。實而非假。所以者何？非一切法皆是尋思所能了故。此名身等何界所繫？為是有情數、為非有情數？為是異熟生、為是所長養、為是等流性？為善、為不善、為無記？此皆應辯。頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) Those who hold that names can show meanings must also admit that this meaning of "name" is that which is jointly established as the fixed standard of expression. If this meaning of a sentence is made clear by names, and the function of showing is already accomplished through the sound, what need is there to claim recklessly that there is a separate real name? Moreover, since one does not understand this name, how is it produced by speech: is it revealed by speech, or generated by speech? If it is generated by speech, then because speech is of the nature of sound, every sound should be able to generate names. If you say that sounds that generate names have differences and that this suffices to show meaning, what need is there to wait for a separate name? If it is revealed by speech, then because speech is of the nature of sound, every sound should be able to reveal names. If you say that sounds that reveal names have differences and that this suffices to show meaning, what need is there to wait for a separate name? Furthermore, successive sounds of thought cannot be gathered together, and no dharma arises gradually part by part, so how can the arising of a name be produced from speech? How can one wait for the past momentary expressions? The last moment of expression would generate unexpressed action. If so, the sound at the last position would generate the name, and merely hearing the last sound would enable one to understand the meaning. If you hold that speech generates syllables, syllables again generate names, and names then show meanings, the faults and difficulties here should be the same as above, because successive syllables cannot be gathered. The fault of speech revealing names should be treated like that of generating them. Moreover, when the wise concentrate their minds on analyzing speech and syllables as different, they cannot distinguish their characteristics. Also, if syllables are either revealed or generated by speech, then with speech and names the same reasoning is unreasonable. Again, if someone holds that names, like birth and the rest, arise together with their meanings, then in the present a name that designates a past or future meaning could not exist. Moreover, parents and others name their sons and so on according to their wishes; how can one say that names, like birth and the rest, arise together with meanings? Also, the unconditioned would have no names, since it has no meaning of birth, and this is not admitted. Furthermore, the World-Honored One spoke of verse as depending on names and syllables; this is a measure jointly established for various meanings. Sound is itself the name, and the particular arrangement of this name is verse. Given this meaning, one says verse depends on names. This verse is the particular arrangement of names; to cling to a real entity is not right reasoning, like the order of trees and so on, or of mind and thoughts. Or else one should cling only to a separate substance of syllables, and the collection of these is called name-group and the like; to cling to anything more would be useless. The Vaibhasika masters say there are separate entities that are the name-group and the like, included in the aggregate of conditioned factors not associated with mind, real and not merely nominal. Why? Because not all dharmas can be understood by reasoning and reflection. To what realm are these name-groups and the like bound? Are they counted among sentient beings, or not? Are they produced by maturation, nourished by growth, or of the nature of outflow? Are they wholesome, unwholesome, or neutral? All of this should be analyzed. A verse says:

欲色有情攝，等流無記性。

They are included among sentient beings of the desire and form realms, of the nature of outflow, and neutral.

論曰：此名身等唯是欲色二界所繫。有說：亦通無色界繫，然不可說。又名身等有情數攝，能說者成非所顯義。又名身等唯是等流，又唯無覆無記性攝。如上所說，餘不相應所未說義今當略辯。頌曰：

The treatise says: These name-groups and the like are bound only to the desire and form realms. Some say they may also be bound to the formless realm, but this cannot be said. Furthermore, name-groups and the like are counted among sentient beings, since the speaker is of that kind and the meaning expressed is not. Also, name-groups and the like are only of the nature of outflow, and are included only in the unobstructed neutral nature. As for the meanings of the other non-associated factors not yet discussed above, I shall now explain them briefly. A verse says:

同分亦如是，並無色異熟，

Homogeneity is also so, and without the formless realm, maturation,

得相通三類，非得定等流。

acquisition and characteristics are of three kinds; the two attainments are only outflow.

論曰：亦如是言，為顯同分如名身等，通於欲色有情等流無覆無記。並無色言，顯非唯欲色。言並異熟，顯非唯等流。是界通三，類通二義。得及諸相類並通三，謂有剎那等流異熟，非得二定唯是等流。唯言為明非異熟等。已說如是所未說義。無想、命根如前已辯。何緣不說得等唯是有情數攝？已說有情所成等故。何緣不說相通有情非有情數？已說一切有為俱故。餘所未說，隨應準知。

The treatise says: The word "also so" shows that homogeneity, like the name-group and so on, pervades sentient beings of the desire and form realms and is of the nature of outflow and unobstructed neutral. The words "without the formless realm" show that it is not only of the desire and form realms. The words "together with maturation" show that it is not only of outflow. Thus the realms are of three kinds, and the classes of two. Acquisition and the various characteristics are all of three kinds, that is, they include the momentary, outflow and maturation; the two attainments are only outflow. The word "only" is to show that they are not matured effects and so on. Thus the meanings not yet stated have now been stated. The state of non-perception and the life faculty were explained before. Why is it not said that acquisition and the like are only counted among sentient beings? Because it has been said that they are accomplished by sentient beings and so on. Why is it not said that the characteristics are of sentient beings and also of non-sentient things? Because it has been said that all conditioned things have them. As for the rest not stated, one should infer accordingly.

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by the Tripitaka Master Xuanzang by imperial command.

分別根品第二之四

Chapter 2 on the Analysis of the Faculties, Part 4.

如是已說不相應行。前言生相生所生時，非離所餘因緣和合，此中何法說為因緣？且因六種，何等為六？頌曰：

Thus the conditioned factors not associated with mind have been explained. Earlier it was said that when the characteristic of birth gives birth to what is born, it is not apart from the union of other causes and conditions; what dharmas are here called causes and conditions? First, there are six kinds of causes. What are the six? A verse says:

能作及俱有，同類與相應，

The efficient cause and the co-existent cause, the homogeneous cause and the associated cause,

遍行並異熟，許因唯六種。

the universal cause and the cause of maturation: causes are admitted to be only these six.

論曰：因有六種，一能作因、二俱有因、三同類因、四相應因、五遍行因、六異熟因，對法諸師許因唯有如是六種。且初能作因相云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: There are six kinds of cause: first the efficient cause, second the co-existent cause, third the homogeneous cause, fourth the associated cause, fifth the universal cause, and sixth the cause of maturation. The Abhidharma masters admit only these six kinds of cause. First, what is the nature of the efficient cause? A verse says:

除自餘能作。

Apart from itself, all others are efficient causes.

論曰：一切有為唯除自體，以一切法為能作因，由彼生時無障住故。雖餘因性亦能作因，然能作因更無別稱，如色處等總即別名。豈不未知諸漏當起，由已知故諸漏不生，智於漏生能為障礙；日光能障現覩眾星。如何有為唯除自體，以一切法為能作因？應知此生時，彼皆無障住，故彼於此是能作因。若於此生，彼能為障而不為障，可立為因。譬如國人以其國主不為損害，鹹作是言：我因國主而得安樂。若於此生彼無障用，設不為障何得為因？且如涅槃及不生法，普於一切有為生中；那落迦等有情相續於無色界諸蘊生中，有如非有無能障用，雖無障用而亦為因，如無力國王，亦得如前說。此即通說諸能作因，就勝為言非無生力。如眼色等於眼識等，生飲食於身種等於牙等。有作是難：若一切法無障住故皆能作因，何緣諸法非皆頓起？一殺生時，何緣一切非如殺者皆成殺業？此難不然。但由無障，許一切法為能作因，非由於生有親作力。有餘師說：諸能作因皆於果生有能作力。且涅槃等於眼識生，云何名為有能作力？意識緣彼為境而生或善或惡，因此意識後時眼識次第得生，展轉因故。彼涅槃等於眼識生有能作力，如是餘法由此方隅展轉應知有能生力。如是已說能作因相。第二俱有因相云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: All conditioned things, excluding only their own substance, take all dharmas as efficient causes, because at the time of their arising these dharmas do not obstruct them. Although the other causes too are by nature efficient causes, the efficient cause has no separate name, just as the bases of form and the like have a general name that is also a particular name. Is it not so that, when one does not yet know the outflows that are about to arise, because one has already known them the outflows do not arise, and knowledge is an obstruction to the arising of outflows; just as sunlight obstructs our seeing the stars? Then how can all dharmas, excluding only their own substance, be efficient causes of conditioned things? One should know that at the time of this arising, those dharmas do not obstruct it, and therefore they are efficient causes for it. If something could obstruct this arising but does not, it can be set up as a cause. For example, the people of a country, because their ruler does not harm them, all say: We have peace and happiness because of our ruler. If it has no operation of obstruction toward this arising, how could it be a cause merely because it does not obstruct? Take nirvana and unborn dharmas, which with respect to the arising of all conditioned things, and the hell beings and so on, in the continuum of sentient beings with respect to the arising of aggregates in the formless realm, are as though non-existent and have no power of obstruction; although they have no obstructing operation, they are still causes, as a powerless king may also be spoken of as above. This is a general statement of the efficient causes, spoken in terms of the most prominent, and not that they lack the power of arising. For example, the eye and form for eye-consciousness, food for the arising of the body, seeds for sprouts, and so on. Someone raises this objection: If all dharmas are efficient causes because they do not obstruct, why do dharmas not all arise at once? When one kills a living being, why do all not become the karma of killing as the killer does? This objection does not hold. We admit all dharmas as efficient causes only because they do not obstruct, not because they have a direct power of producing the arising. Other masters say that all efficient causes have an efficient power with respect to the arising of the effect. Take nirvana and the like in relation to the arising of eye-consciousness: how are they said to have an efficient power? Mental consciousness takes nirvana as its object and arises as wholesome or unwholesome, and from this, at a later time, eye-consciousness arises in turn, through successive causes. Thus nirvana and the like have an efficient power for the arising of eye-consciousness, and in the same way, along these lines, one should know that other dharmas have the power to produce. Thus the characteristic of the efficient cause has been explained. What is the characteristic of the second, the co-existent cause? A verse says:

俱有互為果，如大相所相，

Co-existent causes are mutual effects, like the great elements, characteristics and the thing characterized,

心於心隨轉。

and mind with what follows mind.

論曰：若法更互為士用果，彼法更互為俱有因。其相云何？如四大種更互相望為俱有因，如是諸相與所相法心與心隨轉亦更互為因。是則俱有因由互為果遍攝有為法，如其所應。法與隨相非互為果，然法與隨相為俱有因，非隨相於法。此中應辯。何等名為心隨轉法？頌曰：

The treatise says: If dharmas are effects of one another's personal operation, those dharmas are mutually co-existent causes. What is their nature? For example, the four great elements are co-existent causes with respect to one another, and likewise the characteristics and the thing characterized, and mind and what follows mind, are also causes of one another. Thus the co-existent cause, through the meaning of mutual effect, pervades conditioned dharmas, as appropriate in each case. A dharma and its secondary characteristics are not mutual effects, yet the dharma is a co-existent cause of its secondary characteristics, but the secondary characteristics are not so for the dharma. This should be analyzed here. What are called dharmas that follow mind? A verse says:

心所二律儀，彼及心諸相，

Mental factors, the two restraints, those and the characteristics of mind

是心隨轉法。

are dharmas that follow mind.

論曰：一切所有心相應法，靜慮無漏二種律儀，彼法及心之生等相，如是皆謂心隨轉法。如何此法名心隨轉？頌曰：

The treatise says: All mental factors associated with mind, the two kinds of restraint, that of meditation and the one free of outflows, those dharmas themselves, and the characteristics of birth and the rest of mind, all these are called dharmas that follow mind. Why are these dharmas called following mind? A verse says:

由時果善等。

By time, effect, wholesomeness and the like.

論曰：略說由時果等善等，故說此法名心隨轉。且由時者，謂此與心一生住滅及墮一世。由果等者，謂此與心一果異熟及一等流。應知此中前一後一，顯俱顯共其義不同。由善等者，謂此與心同善、不善、無記性故。由此十因名心隨轉。此中心王極少猶與五十八法為俱有因，謂十大地法彼四十本相、心八本隨相，名五十八法。五十八中除心四隨相，餘五十四為心俱有因。有說：為心因唯十四法，謂十大地法並心本相。此說非善。所以者何？違《品類足論》所說故。如彼論言：或有苦諦以有身見為因，非與有身見為因，除未來有身見及彼相應法生老住非常諸餘染汙苦諦。或有苦諦以有身見為因，亦與有身見為因，即所除法。有餘師不誦及彼相應法。迦濕彌羅國毘婆沙師言：彼文必應作如是誦，或應準義知說有餘，諸由俱有因故成因彼必俱有。或有俱有非由俱有因故成因，謂諸隨相各於本法，此諸隨相各互相對。隨心轉法隨相於心，此諸隨相展轉相對。一切俱生有對造色展轉相對，少分俱生無對造色展轉相對。一切俱生造色大種展轉相對，一切俱生得與所得展轉相對。如是等諸法雖名俱有，而非由俱有因故成因，非一果異熟及一等流故。得與所得非定俱行，或前或後或俱生故。如是一切理且可然，而諸世間種等芽等極成因果相生事中，未見如斯同時因果，故今應說。云何俱起諸法聚中有因果義？豈不現見燈焰燈明芽影同時亦為因果。此應詳辯：為即燈焰與明為因、為由前生因緣和合焰明俱起？餘物障光明而有影現，如何說此影用芽為因？理不應然，隨有無故。善因明者說因果相，言若此有無，彼隨有無者，此定為因，彼定為果。俱有法中一有一切有、一無一切無，理成因果。俱起因果理且可然，如何可言互為因果？即由前說，此亦無違。若爾，如前所說造色互不相離，應互為因。

The treatise says: Briefly, they are called following mind because of time, effect and so on, and wholesomeness and so on. First, "by time" means that these arise, abide and cease together with the mind and fall within one same period. "By effect and so on" means that these have one and the same effect of maturation and one and the same effect of outflow as the mind. One should know that here "one" with respect to earlier and later shows both "shared" and "together," and the meanings differ. "By wholesomeness and so on" means that these are of the same nature as the mind, wholesome, unwholesome or neutral. For these ten reasons they are called following mind. Here, even the minimum mind-king has fifty-eight dharmas as its co-existent causes, namely the ten great-ground factors, their forty primary characteristics, and the eight primary and secondary characteristics of mind, which are called the fifty-eight dharmas. Of the fifty-eight, excluding the four secondary characteristics of mind, the other fifty-four are co-existent causes of mind. Some say that only fourteen dharmas are causes of mind, namely the ten great-ground factors and the primary characteristics of mind. This is not right. Why? Because it contradicts what the Prakaranapada says. As that treatise says: There may be a truth of suffering that has the view of a real self as its cause but is not a cause of the view of a real self, namely the other defiled truths of suffering, excluding the future view of a real self and the birth, aging, abiding and impermanence of the dharmas associated with it. There may be a truth of suffering that has the view of a real self as its cause and is also a cause of the view of a real self, namely the dharmas just excluded. Some other masters do not recite "and the dharmas associated with it." The Vaibhasika masters of Kashmir say: That text must be recited in this way, or else one should know by the meaning that there are others, because when something is a cause by reason of the co-existent cause, it must be co-existent. There may also be something co-existent that is not a cause by reason of the co-existent cause, namely the secondary characteristics each in relation to the primary dharma, and these secondary characteristics in relation to each other; the secondary characteristics in relation to mind among dharmas that follow mind; these secondary characteristics in relation to one another; all co-arisen resistant derived form in relation to one another; part of the co-arisen non-resistant derived form in relation to one another; all co-arisen derived form and great elements in relation to one another; and all co-arisen acquisition and what is acquired in relation to one another. Such dharmas, although called co-existent, are not causes by reason of the co-existent cause, because they do not have one and the same effect of maturation and one and the same effect of outflow. Acquisition and what is acquired are not necessarily concurrent, as they may be earlier, later or simultaneous. All this reasoning is acceptable so far, but in the well-established events of causes and effects giving rise to one another in the world, such as seeds and sprouts, one has not seen such simultaneous cause and effect, so I should now ask: how, in a gathering of dharmas that arise together, can there be a meaning of cause and effect? Do we not plainly see that a lamp flame and its light, and a sprout and its shadow, are simultaneous yet also cause and effect? This should be examined in detail: is it that the flame is the cause of the light, or that through the union of earlier-arisen causes and conditions flame and light arise together? When another object blocks the light and a shadow appears, how can it be said that the shadow has the sprout as its cause? Reasoning does not support this, since they follow one another in presence and absence. Those skilled in logic speak of the characteristics of cause and effect thus: when this exists the other exists, when this does not exist the other does not exist, then this is certainly the cause and that the effect. Among co-existent dharmas, if one exists all exist, and if one does not exist all do not exist, and so in reason they are cause and effect. Simultaneous cause and effect may be accepted so far, but how can one say they are mutually cause and effect? By what was said earlier, this too does not contradict. If so, as said before, derived forms that are inseparable from one another should be causes of one another.

如是造色與諸大種心隨相等與心等法皆不相離，應互為因。若謂如三杖互相依住，如是俱有法因果義成。此應思惟，如是三杖為由俱起相依力住？為由前生因緣合力令彼三杖俱起住耶？又於彼中亦有別物繩鉤地等連持令住，此亦有餘同類因等，是故俱有因義得成。如是已說俱有因相。第三同類因相云何？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) In this way derived forms and the great elements, and the secondary characteristics of mind and the like with mind and the like, are all inseparable, and should be causes of one another. If you say they are like three staves leaning on one another and standing, so the meaning of cause and effect among co-existent dharmas is established, this should be considered: do the three staves stand through the power of arising together and leaning on one another, or does the power of the union of earlier causes and conditions make the three staves arise and stand together? Moreover, in that case there are also other things, such as rope, hook and ground, which hold them and make them stand, and there also are the other homogeneous causes and so on, so the meaning of the co-existent cause is established. Thus the characteristic of the co-existent cause has been explained. What is the characteristic of the third, the homogeneous cause? A verse says:

同類因相似，自部地前生，

The homogeneous cause is similar, of the same division and ground, arisen before,

道展轉九地，唯等勝為果，

the path in succession across nine grounds, with only equal or superior as effect,

加行生亦然，聞思所成等。

and what arises from effort is also so: what is made of hearing, of thought, and so on.

論曰：同類因者，謂相似法與相似法為同類因，謂善五蘊與善五蘊展轉相望為同類因，染汙與染汙、無記與無記五蘊相望應知亦爾。有餘師說：淨無記蘊五是色果，四非色因。有餘師說：五是四果，色非四因。有餘師說：色與四蘊相望展轉皆不為因。又一身中羯剌藍位，能與十位為同類因。頞部曇等九位，一一皆除前位與餘為因，若對餘身同類十位，一一皆與十位為因。由此方隅外麥稻等，自類自類應廣思擇。若不許色為色同類因，彼執便違本論文所說。故本論說：過去大種、未來大種因增上等。為諸相似於相似法皆可得說為同類因？不爾。云何？自部自地唯與自部自地為因，是故說言自部自地。部謂五部，即見苦所斷乃至修所斷。地謂九地，即欲界為一靜慮、無色八。此中見苦所斷法還與見苦所斷為同類因非餘，如是乃至修所斷還與修所斷法為同類因非餘。於中一一，若欲界地還與欲界為同類因，初靜慮地與初靜慮為同類因，乃至有頂與有頂地為同類因；異地相望皆無因義。又此非一切。何者？謂前生唯諸前生與後相似生未生法為同類因。云何知然？本論說故。如《發智論》說：云何同類因？謂前生善根與後生自界善根及彼相應法為同類因。如是過去與餘二世，過去現在與未來等皆應廣說。然即彼論作是問言：若法與彼法為因，或時此法與彼非因耶？彼即答言：無時非因者，此依俱有、相應、異熟三因密說，故無有過。有謂未來正生位法定能與彼為同類因，是故彼文依最後位密作是答無時非因。彼於所難非為善釋。以未來法正生位前非同類因，後方成故。又若爾者，彼復問言：若法與彼法為等無間，或時此法與彼非等無間耶？彼即答言：若時此法未至已生。若如彼釋，應亦答言無時非緣，如何乃答若時此法未至已生。然彼復釋，為現二門，如彼處說，此亦應爾；如此處說，彼亦應爾。如是作文獲何功德？

The treatise says: The homogeneous cause means that a similar dharma is the homogeneous cause of a similar dharma; for example, the wholesome five aggregates are homogeneous causes of the wholesome five aggregates with respect to one another, and one should know that the same is true of the defiled with the defiled and the neutral with the neutral five aggregates. Some other masters say that of the pure neutral aggregates, the five are the effect of form and the four non-form aggregates are its cause. Other masters say that the five are the effect of the four, and form is not a cause of the four. Other masters say that form and the four aggregates are not causes of one another at all. Furthermore, within one body, in the kalala stage, it can be the homogeneous cause of the ten stages; in the arbuda stage and the others, each of the nine stages, excluding the earlier stage, is a cause for the others, and if one faces the ten stages of another body of the same kind, each is a cause for all ten stages. By this direction, wheat, rice and the like outside, each of their own kind with its own kind, should be thought through widely. If one does not allow that form is the homogeneous cause of form, that view contradicts what the basic treatise says. Therefore the basic treatise says: Past great elements, future great elements, causes of increase, and so on. Can all similar dharmas be called homogeneous causes of similar dharmas? No. How, then? Only the same division and the same ground are causes for the same division and the same ground, therefore it says "same division, same ground." Division means the five divisions, from what is abandoned by seeing suffering to what is abandoned by cultivation. Ground means the nine grounds, namely the desire realm as one, the meditations as four, and the formless as eight. Here a dharma abandoned by seeing suffering is again a homogeneous cause only of what is abandoned by seeing suffering and not of others, and likewise up to what is abandoned by cultivation, which is again a homogeneous cause only of dharmas abandoned by cultivation and not of others. Within each, the desire-realm ground is a homogeneous cause only of the desire realm, the first meditation ground of the first meditation, and so on up to the peak of existence, which is a homogeneous cause only of the peak of existence ground; between different grounds there is no meaning of cause. Also, this does not apply to everything. Why? It means that only what arose earlier is the homogeneous cause of similar dharmas that arise later and have not yet arisen. How do we know this? Because the basic treatise says so. As the Jnanaprasthana says: What is the homogeneous cause? It is that earlier-arisen wholesome roots are homogeneous causes of later-arisen wholesome roots of the same realm and the dharmas associated with them. In this way, past with the other two times, and past and present with future, and so on, should all be explained in detail. Yet that very treatise asks: If a dharma is a cause of that dharma, is there a time when this dharma is not its cause? It answers: There is no time when it is not a cause. This is said on the basis of the three causes, co-existent, associated and maturation, as a hidden statement, so there is no fault. Some say that a future dharma that is about to arise is certain to be a homogeneous cause of that dharma, so that text answers, relying on the final stage, as a hidden statement, that there is no time when it is not a cause. That is not a good explanation of what it was asked, because a future dharma before the stage of actual arising is not a homogeneous cause, and becomes one only afterward. Also, if so, that treatise again asks: If a dharma is the immediately preceding condition of that dharma, is there a time when this dharma is not its immediately preceding condition? It answers: When this dharma has not yet arrived but has already arisen. If one explains as they do, one should also answer that there is no time when it is not a condition, so why does it answer, when this dharma has not yet arrived but has already arisen? Yet they again explain that, in order to show two doors, as stated there, so too here, and as stated here, so too there. What merit is gained by composing a text like this?

唯顯論主非善於文。是故應知前釋為善。若爾，何故《品類足》說：或有苦諦以有身見為因，非與有身見為因，除未來有身見及彼相應苦諦諸餘染汙苦諦。或有苦諦以有身見為因，亦與有身見為因，即所除法。彼文應說，除未來有身見相應苦諦。設有如彼說，由義應知非。復云何通《施設足論》？彼說諸法四事決定，所謂因、果、所依、所緣。應知彼文，因者謂能作、俱有、相應、異熟因。果者，謂增上、士用、異熟果。所依者謂眼等六根。所緣者謂色等六境。若爾，同類因應本無而有，許故無過。約位非體，由和合作用位果非體果。若同類因未來世有，如異熟因，當有何過？未來若有，本論應說。本論唯說能取與果諸同類因，故無有失。無如是義，以同類因引等流果此未來有，理必不然，無前後故。不應已生法為未生等流，如過去法非現在果。勿有果先因後過失故，未來世無同類因。若爾，異熟因應未來非有，不應異熟果因前及俱故。未來世法無前後故，無如是失，不相似故。謂同類因與果相似，若無前後應互為因，既互為因應互為果，互為因果與理相違。非異熟因與果相似，雖離前後而無上過，故同類因就位建立未來非有，若異熟因就相建立未來非無。言同類因唯自地者，定依何說？定依有漏。若無漏道展轉相望一一皆與九地為因，謂未至定、靜慮中間、四本靜慮、三本無色，九地道諦皆互為因。所以者何？此於諸地皆如客住不墮界攝，非諸地愛執為己有，是故九地道雖地不同而展轉為因，由同類故。然唯得與等勝為因，非為劣因，加行生故。且如已生苦法智忍還與未來苦法智忍為同類因，是名為等。又即此忍復能與後從苦法智至無生智為同類因，是名為勝。如是廣說，乃至已生諸無生智唯與等類為同類因，更無勝故。又諸已生見道修道及無學道，隨其次第與三二一為同類因。

(The treatise continues:) This only shows that the author of the treatise is not skilled in writing. Therefore one should know that the former explanation is the good one. If so, why does the Prakarana say: There may be a truth of suffering that has the view of a real self as its cause but is not a cause of the view of a real self, namely the other defiled truths of suffering, excluding the future view of a real self and the truth of suffering associated with it. There may be a truth of suffering that has the view of a real self as its cause and is also a cause of the view of a real self, namely the dharmas just excluded. That text should say: excluding the truth of suffering associated with the future view of a real self. If it is said as that text says, one should know by the meaning that it is not so. How, then, is the Prajnapti-pada to be reconciled? It says that for dharmas, four matters are determined, namely cause, effect, support and object. One should know that in that text, cause means the efficient, co-existent, associated and maturation causes; effect means the effect of dominance, the effect of personal operation and the effect of maturation; support means the six faculties such as the eye; and object means the six objects such as form. If so, the homogeneous cause should be something that did not exist and now exists, and since you allow that, there is no fault. This is according to stage and not substance; it is by the stage of union and operation, the effect being a stage effect and not a substance effect. If the homogeneous cause existed in the future, as the cause of maturation does, what fault would there be? If it existed in the future, the basic treatise would have said so. The basic treatise says only that those that take and give effects are homogeneous causes, so there is no fault. There is no such meaning, and it is surely not reasonable that a homogeneous cause that draws an effect of outflow should exist in the future, since there would be no before and after. A dharma that has already arisen should not be the not-yet-arisen effect of outflow, just as a past dharma is not the effect of the present. To avoid the fault of the effect coming before the cause, there is no homogeneous cause in the future. If so, the cause of maturation should not exist in the future, since the matured effect should not be before or simultaneous with its cause. A future dharma has no before and after, so there is no such fault, because they are not similar. The homogeneous cause is similar to its effect, and if there were no before and after, they would be causes of one another, and being causes of one another they would be effects of one another, and for them to be mutually cause and effect contradicts reason. The cause of maturation is not similar to its effect, so although it is without before and after, it has none of the faults above; therefore the homogeneous cause is established by stage as non-existent in the future, whereas the cause of maturation is established by characteristic as not non-existent in the future. When it is said that the homogeneous cause is only of its own ground, on what basis is this definitely said? It is said definitely with reference to the defiled. As for the undefiled path, each, in succession and relation, is a cause for all nine grounds: the preparatory concentration, the intermediate meditation, the four basic meditations and the three basic formless attainments; the truth of the path in all nine grounds is cause for one another. Why? Because in all these grounds they dwell as guests and do not fall within any realm, and the craving of the grounds does not cling to them as its own. So although the grounds of the path differ, they are causes of one another, since they are of the same kind. Yet they can be causes only for equals and superiors, not for inferiors, because they arise from effort. For example, the already arisen patient acceptance of the knowledge of suffering is again a homogeneous cause of the future patient acceptance of the knowledge of suffering, and this is called equal. Again, this same acceptance can be the homogeneous cause of later states from the knowledge of suffering up to the knowledge of non-arising, and this is called superior. Explained in this way in detail, up to the already arisen knowledges of non-arising, which are homogeneous causes only for their equals, since there is nothing superior. Also, the already arisen paths of seeing, cultivation and no more learning are homogeneous causes for three, two and one respectively, in order.

又於此中諸鈍根道與鈍及利為同類因。若利根道唯利道因，如隨信行及信勝解時解脫道，隨其次第與六四二為同類因。若隨法行及見至非時解脫道，隨其次第與三二一為同類因。諸上地道為下地因。云何名為或等或勝？由因增長及由根故。謂見道等下下品等，後後位中因轉增長。雖一相續中無容可得隨信隨法行二道現起，而已生者為未來因。為唯聖道但與等勝為同類因？不爾。云何？餘世間法加行生者亦與等勝為因非劣。加行生法其體云何？謂聞所成、思所成等。等者等取。修所成等，因聞思修所生功德，名彼所成，加行生故唯與等勝為因非劣。如欲界繫，聞所成法能與自界聞思所成為同類因，非修所成因，欲界無故。思所成法與思所成為同類因，非聞所成因，以彼劣故。若色界繫聞所成法，能與自界聞修所成為同類因，非思所成因，色界無故。修所成法唯與自界修所成法為同類因，非聞所成因，以彼劣故。無色界繫修所成法，唯與自界修所成法為同類因，非聞思所成因，以無故劣故。如是諸法復有九品，若下下品為九品因，下中八因，乃至上上唯上上因，除前劣故。生得善法九品相望展轉為因，染汙亦爾。無覆無記總有四種，謂異熟生、威儀路、工巧處、化心俱品，隨其次第，能與四三二一為因。又欲界化心有四靜慮果，非上靜慮果下靜慮果因，非加行因得下劣果，如勤功力種稻麥等。勿設劬勞而無所獲。因如是義，故有問言：頗有已生諸無漏法非未生位無漏法因？有，謂已生苦法智品於未生位苦法忍品，又一切勝於一切劣。頗有一身諸無漏法前所定得非後生因？有，謂未來苦法忍品於後已生苦法智品，以果必無在因前故，或同類因未來無故。頗有前生諸無漏法非後已起無漏法因？有，謂前生勝無漏法於後已起劣無漏法，如退上果下果現前。又前已生苦法智得，於後已生苦法忍得非同類因，以彼劣故。

(The treatise continues:) Moreover, here the paths of dull faculties are homogeneous causes for both dull and sharp. As for the paths of sharp faculties, they are causes only of sharp paths. For example, the liberated path of one who follows faith and of one who is liberated by faith are homogeneous causes for six, four and two, in order. The liberated path of one who follows the Dharma and of one who has attained by seeing, and one not liberated by time, are homogeneous causes for three, two and one, in order. The paths of higher grounds are causes of lower grounds. How are they called either equal or superior? By the growth of the cause and by the faculties. In the lower-lower grade and the others of the path of seeing and so on, the cause grows in each later stage. Although in one continuum it is not possible for the two paths of following faith and following the Dharma to appear together, the one already arisen is a cause for the future. Is it only the noble path that is a homogeneous cause for equals and superiors? No. How, then? Other worldly dharmas arising from effort are also causes for equals and superiors and not for inferiors. What is the substance of dharmas arising from effort? It is what is made of hearing, what is made of thought, and so on. "And so on" includes what is made of cultivation and the like; the merits born from hearing, thought and cultivation are called made of them, and because they arise from effort they are causes only for equals and superiors and not for inferiors. For example, what is made of hearing, bound to the desire realm, can be a homogeneous cause of what is made of hearing and of thought in its own realm, but not a cause of what is made of cultivation, since the desire realm has none. What is made of thought is a homogeneous cause of what is made of thought but not a cause of what is made of hearing, because that is inferior. What is made of hearing, bound to the form realm, can be a homogeneous cause of what is made of hearing and of cultivation in its own realm but not a cause of what is made of thought, since the form realm has none. What is made of cultivation is a homogeneous cause only of what is made of cultivation in its own realm and not a cause of what is made of hearing, because that is inferior. What is made of cultivation, bound to the formless realm, is a homogeneous cause only of what is made of cultivation in its own realm and not a cause of what is made of hearing or thought, because it has none and because they are inferior. These dharmas further have nine grades: the lower-lower grade is a cause for nine grades, the lower-middle for eight, and so on up to the upper-upper, which is a cause only for the upper-upper, excluding what is inferior to it. Innate wholesome dharmas of nine grades are causes of one another in succession, and so too the defiled. Unobstructed neutral dharmas are of four kinds, namely those born of maturation, those of deportment, those of craft, and those accompanying transformation mind, which are causes for four, three, two and one respectively. Also, the transformation mind of the desire realm has four fruits of meditation; it is not a cause of the fruits of higher meditation or of lower meditation, and what is not an effortful cause does not obtain a lowly effect, as with those who sow rice and wheat through diligent labor; let it not be that one toils and gains nothing. Because of this meaning, there are questions: Is there an already arisen undefiled dharma that is not a cause of an undefiled dharma of a not yet arisen stage? There is: the already arisen grade of the knowledge of suffering of the dharma with respect to the not yet arisen grade of the acceptance of suffering of the dharma, and all superior ones with respect to all inferior ones. Is there, in one body, an undefiled dharma that was surely attained earlier but is not a cause of what arises later? There is: the future grade of the acceptance of suffering with respect to the later already arisen grade of the knowledge of suffering, since an effect cannot precede its cause, or because there is no homogeneous cause in the future. Is there an earlier arisen undefiled dharma that is not a cause of an undefiled dharma that arises later? There is: an earlier arisen superior undefiled dharma with respect to a later arisen inferior undefiled dharma, as when one regresses and the fruit of a lower stage appears. Also, the previously arisen acquisition of the knowledge of suffering of the dharma is not a homogeneous cause of the later arisen acquisition of the acceptance of the knowledge of suffering, because the latter is inferior.

如是已說同類因相。第四相應因相云何？頌曰：

Thus the characteristic of the homogeneous cause has been explained. What is the characteristic of the fourth, the associated cause? A verse says:

相應因決定，心心所同依。

The associated cause is determined: mind and mental factors share the same support.

論曰：唯心心所是相應因。若爾，所緣行相別者，亦應更互為相應因。不爾，所緣行相同者乃可得說為相應故。若爾，異時所緣行相同者應說為相應因。不爾，要須所緣行相及時同者乃相應故。若爾，異身所緣行相及時同者應說相應，如眾同觀初月等事，為以一言總遮如是眾多妨難，故說同依。謂要同依心心所法，方得更互為相應因。此中同言顯所依一，謂若眼識用此剎那眼根為依，相應受等亦即用此眼根為依，乃至意識及相應法同依意根，應知亦爾。相應因體即俱有因，如是二因義何差別？由互為果義立俱有因，如商侶相依共遊險道。由五平等共相應義立相應因，即如商侶同受同作食等事業，其中闕一皆不相應，是故極成互為因義。如是已說相應因相。第五遍行因相云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Only mind and mental factors are associated causes. If so, those with different objects and modes of apprehension should also be mutually associated causes. Not so; only those with the same objects and modes of apprehension can be said to be associated. If so, those with the same object and mode but at different times should be called associated causes. Not so; only those with the same object, mode and time are associated. If so, those in different bodies with the same object, mode and time should be called associated, as when many together look at the new moon and the like. In order to rule out these many difficulties in one word, it says "same support." That is, only mind and mental factors that have the same support can be associated causes for one another. Here the word "same" shows that the support is one: if eye-consciousness takes this moment's eye faculty as its support, the associated feelings and so on also take this eye faculty as their support, and so on up to mental consciousness and its associates, which share the mind faculty as support; one should know the same of these. The substance of the associated cause is the co-existent cause itself, so what is the difference between these two causes? The co-existent cause is established through the meaning of mutual effect, like merchants who depend on one another in traveling together through a dangerous road. The associated cause is established through the meaning of the five equalities in mutual association, like merchants who together share the same feeling, the same activity and the same meals; if any one is lacking they are not associated, and so the meaning of mutual cause is well established. Thus the characteristic of the associated cause has been explained. What is the characteristic of the fifth, the universal cause? A verse says:

遍行謂前遍，為同地染因。

Universal means what is universal and earlier, a cause of defilement in the same ground.

論曰：遍行因者，謂前已生遍行諸法，與後同地染汙諸法為遍行因。遍行諸法，隨眠品中遍行義處當廣分別。此與染法為通因故，同類因外更別建立。亦為餘部染法因故，由此勢力餘部煩惱及彼眷屬亦生長故。聖者身中諸染汙法，豈亦用此為遍行因？迦濕彌羅國毘婆沙師說：一切染汙法，見所斷為因。故《品類足》說如是言：云何見所斷為因法？謂諸染汙法及見所斷法所感異熟。云何無記為因法？謂諸無記有為法及不善法。或有苦諦以有身見為因，非與有身見為因，廣說乃至，除未來有身見及彼相應法生老住無常諸餘染汙苦諦。若爾，云何通《施設足論》說？如彼論說：頗有法是不善唯不善為因耶？有，謂聖人離欲退最初已起染汙思，依未斷因密作是說。見所斷法雖是此因，而由已斷故廢不說。如是已說遍行因相。第六異熟因相云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The universal cause means that earlier arisen universal dharmas are universal causes of later defiled dharmas of the same ground. The universal dharmas will be explained in detail in the passage on the meaning of universality in the chapter on latent tendencies. This is established as a general cause of defiled dharmas, apart from the homogeneous cause. It is also the cause of defiled dharmas of other divisions, because by its power the afflictions of other divisions and their retinues also grow. Do defiled dharmas in the bodies of noble ones also take this as the universal cause? The Vaibhasika masters of Kashmir say: Of all defiled dharmas, those abandoned by seeing are the cause. Therefore the Prakarana says: What are the dharmas that have what is abandoned by seeing as cause? They are all defiled dharmas, and the matured effect of what is abandoned by seeing. What are the dharmas that have the neutral as cause? They are the neutral conditioned dharmas and unwholesome dharmas. There may be a truth of suffering that has the view of a real self as its cause but is not a cause of the view of a real self, and so on up to, excluding the future view of a real self and the birth, aging, abiding and impermanence of the dharmas associated with it, the other defiled truths of suffering. If so, how is the Prajnapti-pada reconciled? As that treatise says: Is there a dharma that is unwholesome and has only the unwholesome as cause? There is: the first defiled thought arisen when a noble one regresses from freedom from desire, said as a hidden statement with respect to the cause not yet cut off. Although the dharmas abandoned by seeing are its cause, they are set aside and not mentioned because they have already been cut off. Thus the characteristic of the universal cause has been explained. What is the characteristic of the sixth, the cause of maturation? A verse says:

異熟因不善，及善唯有漏。

The cause of maturation is the unwholesome, and the wholesome only with outflows.

論曰：唯諸不善及善有漏是異熟因，異熟法故。何緣無記不招異熟？由力劣故，如朽敗種。何緣無漏不招異熟？無愛潤故，如貞實種無水潤沃。又非繫地，如何能招繫地異熟？餘法具二，是故能招，如貞實種、水所沃潤。異熟因義如何可了？為異熟之因名異熟因？為異熟即因名異熟因？義兼兩釋，斯有何過？若異熟之因名異熟因，聖教不應言異熟生眼。若異熟即因名異熟因，聖教不應言業之異熟。兩釋俱通，已如前辯。所言異熟其義云何？毘婆沙師作如是釋：異類而熟是異熟義，謂異熟因唯異類熟。俱有等因唯同類熟，能作一因兼同異熟，故唯此一名異熟因。熟果不應餘因所得，果具二義方得熟名：一由相續轉變差別其體得生，二由隨因勢力勝劣時有分限。非彼俱有、相應二因所生果體，要由相續轉變差別方乃得生，由取果時即與果故。又非能作同類、遍行三因之果，亦由隨因勢力勝劣、時有分限，由善惡等窮生死邊果數數生、時無限故。由此但應作如是釋。變異而熟是異熟義，不應但異簡別餘因。於欲界中有時一蘊為異熟因共感一果，謂有記得及彼生等。有時二蘊為異熟因共感一果，謂善不善身業語業及彼生等。有時四蘊為異熟因共感一果，謂善不善心心所法及彼生等。於色界中有時一蘊為異熟因共感一果，謂有記得、無想等至及彼生等。有時二蘊為異熟因共感一果，謂初靜慮善有表業及彼生等。有時四蘊為異熟因共感一果，謂非等引善心心所及彼生等。有時五蘊為異熟因共感一果，謂是等引心心所法並隨轉色及彼生等。無色界中有時一蘊為異熟因共感一果，謂有記得、滅盡等至及彼生等。有時四蘊為異熟因共感一果，謂一切善心心所法及彼生等。有業唯感一處異熟，謂感法處，即命根等。若感意處，定感二處，謂意與法。若感觸處應知亦爾。若感身處，定感三處，謂身觸法。感色香味應知亦爾。

The treatise says: Only the unwholesome and the wholesome with outflows are causes of maturation, because they are dharmas of maturation. Why does the neutral not bring about maturation? Because its power is weak, like a rotten seed. Why does the undefiled not bring about maturation? Because it has no moistening by craving, like a sound seed that is not watered. Moreover, what is not bound to a ground, how could it bring about maturation bound to a ground? Other dharmas that possess both conditions can bring it about, like a sound seed that is watered and moistened. How should the meaning of the cause of maturation be understood? Is the cause of maturation called so because it is the cause of maturation, or because the maturation itself is the cause? The meaning includes both explanations, and what fault is there in that? If it is called the cause of maturation because it is the cause of maturation, the holy teaching should not speak of a maturation-born eye. If it is called so because the maturation itself is the cause, the holy teaching should not speak of the maturation of action. Both explanations hold, as already explained. What is the meaning of the word "maturation"? The Vaibhasika masters explain thus: Ripening as another kind is the meaning of maturation; that is, the cause of maturation ripens only as another kind. Co-existent and other causes ripen only as the same kind, and the efficient cause covers both same and different maturation, so only this one cause is called the cause of maturation. A matured effect cannot be obtained from the other causes, because an effect must have two meanings to be called ripened: first, its substance arises through the difference of transformation in continuity; second, by following the power of the cause its superiority or inferiority has a limit in time. The effects produced by the co-existent and associated causes are not so, for their substance must arise by the difference of transformation in continuity, since the effect is given at the time it is taken. And neither are the effects of the efficient, homogeneous and universal causes, for they too follow the power of the cause in superiority and inferiority and have a limit in time, but the effects of wholesome and unwholesome actions arise repeatedly to the end of birth and death and have no limit in time. Thus one should explain only like this: ripening as transformed is the meaning of maturation, and it is not appropriate to distinguish it from the other causes merely by difference. In the desire realm, at times one aggregate is a cause of maturation that jointly brings about one effect, namely the acquisition of what is declared, and what arises with it. At times two aggregates are causes of maturation that jointly bring about one effect, namely wholesome and unwholesome bodily and verbal action and what arises with them. At times four aggregates are causes of maturation that jointly bring about one effect, namely wholesome and unwholesome mind and mental factors and what arises with them. In the form realm at times one aggregate is a cause of maturation that jointly brings about one effect, namely the acquisition of what is declared, the attainment of non-perception and what arises with them. At times two aggregates are causes of maturation that jointly bring about one effect, namely the wholesome manifest action of the first meditation and what arises with it. At times four aggregates are causes of maturation that jointly bring about one effect, namely wholesome mind and mental factors that are not in equipoise and what arises with them. At times five aggregates are causes of maturation that jointly bring about one effect, namely the mind and mental factors in equipoise together with the form that follows them and what arises with them. In the formless realm at times one aggregate is a cause of maturation that jointly brings about one effect, namely the acquisition of what is declared, the attainment of cessation and what arises with them. At times four aggregates are causes of maturation that jointly bring about one effect, namely all wholesome mind and mental factors and what arises with them. There are actions that bring about the maturation of only one base, namely the dharma base, which means the life faculty and the like. If it brings about the mind base, it certainly brings about two bases, namely the mind and dharma bases. If it brings about the touch base, one should know that it is the same. If it brings about the body base, it certainly brings about three bases, namely body, touch and dharma. One should know the same of what brings about form, smell and taste.

若感眼處定感四處、謂感眼處及身觸法。感耳鼻舌應知亦爾。有業能感或五或六或七或八或九或十或十一處，業或少果或多果故。如外種果或少或多，種果少者如穀麥等，種果多者如蓮石榴諾瞿陀等。有一世業三世異熟，無三世業一世異熟，勿設劬勞果減因故。有一念業多念異熟，無多念業一念異熟，此中所以如上應知。然異熟果無與業俱，非造業時即受果故。亦非無間，由次剎那等無間緣力所引故。又異熟因感異類果必待相續方能辦故。如是六因定居何世？因居世定。義雖已說而未頌攝，故應重辯。頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) If it brings about the eye base, it certainly brings about four bases, namely the eye base together with body, touch and dharma. One should know the same of what brings about the ear, nose and tongue. There are actions that can bring about five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten or eleven bases, because action may have few effects or many effects. It is like outer seeds, whose fruit may be few or many: seeds with few fruits are like grain and wheat, and seeds with many fruits are like the lotus, pomegranate, nyagrodha and the like. There is action of one lifetime with maturation in three lifetimes, but there is no action of three lifetimes with maturation in one lifetime, so that no effect is less than its cause after toil. There is action of one thought moment with maturation in many thought moments, but no action of many moments with maturation in one moment; the reason here should be understood as above. However, the matured effect is never simultaneous with the action, because one does not receive the effect at the time of creating the action. Nor is it immediate, because it is drawn out by the power of the immediately preceding condition of the next moment and so on. Also, because the cause of maturation brings about an effect of a different kind, it must wait for the continuity in order to accomplish it. Thus in which time do the six causes definitely reside? The causes are fixed in respect of time. Although the meaning has been stated, it has not yet been gathered into a verse, so it should be explained again. A verse says:

遍行與同類，二世三世三。

Universal and homogeneous are in two times; the three are in three times.

論曰：遍行、同類唯居過現，未來世無，理如前說。相應、俱有、異熟三因，於三世中皆悉遍有。頌既不說能作因所居，義準應知通三世非世。已說六因相別世定。何等為果對彼成因？頌曰：

The treatise says: The universal and homogeneous causes reside only in the past and present, and do not exist in the future, as explained above. The three causes of associated, co-existent and maturation exist pervasively in all three times. Since the verse does not state where the efficient cause resides, one should know by the meaning that it extends through the three times and beyond time. The distinctions of the six causes and their times have been explained. What are the effects that these are causes of? A verse says:

果有為離繫，無為無因果。

Effects are the conditioned and disjunction; the unconditioned has no cause and no effect.

論曰：如本論說：果法雲何？謂諸有為及與擇滅。若爾，無為許是果故則應有因，要對彼因乃可得說此為果故。又此無為許是因故亦應有果，要對彼果乃可得說此為因故。唯有為法有因有果，非諸無為。所以者何？無六因故、無五果故。何緣不許諸無間道與離繫果為能作因？於生不障立能作因，無為無生道何所作？若爾，誰果？果義如何？謂是道果，道力得故。若爾，道果應唯是得，道於得有能，非於擇滅故。不爾，於得於擇滅中，道之功能有差別故。云何於得道有功能？謂能生故。云何於滅道有功能？謂能證故。由此理故，道雖非滅因，而可得說擇滅為道果。既諸無為無增上果，如何可說為能作因？以諸無為於他生位不為障故立能作因。然無果者，由離世法無能取果與果用故。經部師說：無為非因，無經說因是無為故，有經說因唯有為故。何處經說？如有經說：諸因諸緣能生色者皆是無常。無常因緣所生諸色如何是常？廣說乃至識亦如是。若爾，無為亦應不與能緣識等作所緣緣。唯說能生故得作所緣緣，謂經唯說諸因諸緣能生識者皆是無常，不說一切為識緣者皆是無常，故不成難。豈不亦說唯能生因是無常故，不撥無為唯不障故為能作因。有契經中說無為法為所緣緣，無契經中說無為法為能作因故。不應立為唯不障因性，雖無經說亦無處遮。又無量經今已隱沒，云何定判無經說耶？若爾，何法名為離繫？即本論中所說擇滅。豈不先問：何謂擇滅？答是離繫。今問何法名為離繫？答是擇滅。如是二答更互相依，於此自性竟不能顯，故應別門開顯自性。此法自性實有離言，唯諸聖者各別內證，但可方便總相說言是善是常，別有實物名為擇滅亦名離繫。經部師說：一切無為皆非實有，如色受等別有實物，此所無故。若爾，何故名虛空等？唯無所觸說名虛空，謂於闇中無所觸對，便作是說此是虛空。

The treatise says: As the original treatise says: What are fruits? They are conditioned dharmas and cessation through discrimination. If so, since the unconditioned is accepted as a fruit, it should have a cause, because only in relation to that cause can it be called a fruit. Also, since the unconditioned is accepted as a cause, it should have a fruit, because only in relation to that fruit can it be called a cause. Only conditioned dharmas have causes and fruits, not the unconditioned. Why? Because it has no six causes and no five fruits. Why is it not accepted that the uninterrupted paths are efficient causes of the fruit of disjunction? Efficient causes are established by not hindering arising; the unconditioned has no arising, so what could a path do to it? If so, whose fruit is it, and what is the meaning of fruit? It is the fruit of the path, obtained by the power of the path. If so, the fruit of the path should be only attainment, since the path has efficacy over attainment and not over cessation through discrimination. Not so: in attainment and in cessation through discrimination, the path's efficacy differs. How does the path have efficacy over attainment? Because it can produce it. How does the path have efficacy over cessation? Because it can realize it. By this reasoning, although the path is not the cause of cessation, cessation through discrimination can be called the fruit of the path. Since the unconditioned has no dominant fruit, how can it be called an efficient cause? Because the unconditioned does not obstruct the arising of others and so is established as an efficient cause. Yet it has no fruit, because apart from worldly dharmas there is nothing that can take a fruit or give the function of a fruit. The Sautrantika masters say: The unconditioned is not a cause, because no sutra says that a cause is unconditioned, while there are sutras saying that causes are only conditioned. Where does a sutra say so? As a sutra says: All causes and conditions that can produce form are impermanent. How could forms produced by impermanent causes and conditions be permanent? And so on at length, up to consciousness. If so, the unconditioned should also not be an object condition for consciousness and so on that apprehend it. It is said only that causes and conditions that produce are impermanent, because the sutra says only that all the causes and conditions that can produce consciousness are impermanent, and does not say that everything that is a condition for consciousness is impermanent; so the objection does not stand. Is it not also said that only producing causes are impermanent, so that one does not reject the unconditioned as an efficient cause merely by not obstructing? There are sutras that speak of unconditioned dharmas as object conditions, but no sutra that speaks of unconditioned dharmas as efficient causes. So it should not be established as merely the non-obstructing cause in nature; although no sutra says so, there is no passage that denies it. Also, countless sutras are now lost, so how can one definitively judge that there is no sutra saying so? If so, what dharma is called disjunction? It is the cessation through discrimination spoken of in the original treatise. Was it not first asked: What is cessation through discrimination? And answered: disjunction. Now it is asked: What dharma is called disjunction? And answered: cessation through discrimination. These two answers depend on each other, and its own nature is not revealed in this at all; so its own nature should be revealed by another approach. The own nature of this dharma truly exists but is beyond words and is realized internally by each noble one separately; it can only be expediently described in general terms as good and permanent, and there is a separate real thing called cessation through discrimination, also called disjunction. The Sautrantika masters say: All unconditioned dharmas are not truly existent, like form, feeling and so on, which have separate real things; this has none. If so, why is it called space and so on? It is called space only because there is nothing that touches; that is, in the dark when there is nothing that obstructs, one says this is space.

已起隨眠生種滅位，由簡擇力餘不更生，說名擇滅。離簡擇力，由闕緣故餘不更生，名非擇滅，如殘眾同分中夭者餘蘊。餘部師說：由慧功能隨眠不生，名為擇滅。隨眠緣闕後苦不生不由慧能，名非擇滅。離簡擇力此滅不成，故此不生即擇滅攝。有說：諸法生已後無，自然滅故，名非擇滅。如是所執非擇滅體應是無常，未滅無故。豈不擇滅擇為先故，先無後有應亦無常，非擇為先方有擇滅。如何擇滅亦是無常？所以者何？非先有擇後未生法方有不生。何者不生？本來自有，若無簡擇諸法應生，簡擇生時法永不起。於此不起，擇有功能，謂於先時未有生障，今為生障非造不生。若唯不生是涅槃者，此經文句當云何通？經言：五根若修若習若多修習，能令過去未來現在眾苦永斷。此永斷體即是涅槃，唯於未來有不生義非於過現，豈不相違？雖有此文而不違義。此經意說，緣過現苦煩惱斷故名眾苦斷。如世尊言：汝等於色應斷貪欲，貪欲斷時便名色斷及色遍智，廣說乃至識亦如是。過現苦斷義亦應然。設有餘經言斷過去未來現在諸煩惱者，準前理釋，義亦無違。或此經中別有意趣，過去煩惱謂過去生所起煩惱，現在煩惱謂現在生所起煩惱。如愛行中十八愛行，過去世起者依過去生說，未來現在應知亦爾。如是二世所起煩惱，為生未來諸煩惱故，於現相續引起種子，此種斷故彼亦名斷。如異熟盡時亦說名業盡，未來眾苦及諸煩惱，由無種故畢竟不生，說名為斷。若異此者，過去現在何緣須斷？非於已滅及正滅時，須設劬勞為令其滅。若無為法其體都無，何故經說：所有諸法，若諸有為若諸無為，於中離染最為第一。如何無法可於無中立為第一？我亦不說諸無為法其體都無，但應如我所說而有。如說此聲有先非有、有後非有，不可非有說為有故有義得成。說有無為，應知亦爾。

(The treatise continues:) In the stage where the latent tendencies that have arisen and their seeds of arising are extinguished, by the power of discrimination the rest no longer arise again, and this is called cessation through discrimination. Apart from the power of discrimination, because of a lack of conditions, the others no longer arise again, and this is called cessation not through discrimination, as with the other aggregates of one who dies young within a remaining group of beings. Masters of other schools say: By the efficacy of wisdom the latent tendencies do not arise, and this is called cessation through discrimination. When the conditions for latent tendencies are lacking and later suffering does not arise, not through the power of wisdom, this is called cessation not through discrimination. Apart from the power of discrimination this cessation cannot be established, and so this non-arising is included in cessation through discrimination. Some say: Dharmas, having arisen, later cease naturally, and so it is called cessation not through discrimination. If what is held to be cessation not through discrimination is of this kind, its substance should be impermanent, because it does not exist before ceasing. But is not cessation through discrimination also preceded by discrimination, so that having been absent before and present later it should also be impermanent; and only cessation not preceded by discrimination exists apart? How can cessation through discrimination also be impermanent? Why? It is not that discrimination exists first and only then do dharmas not yet arisen come to non-arising. What does not arise? Each dharma originally has its own existence; if there were no discrimination the dharmas would arise, but when discrimination arises the dharma never arises. With regard to this non-arising, discrimination has efficacy: namely, before, there was no obstruction to arising, but now it becomes an obstruction to arising; it does not produce non-arising. If non-arising alone is nirvana, how is this passage of scripture to be reconciled? The sutra says: If the five faculties are cultivated, practiced and repeatedly cultivated, they can forever cut off the many sufferings of past, future and present. The substance of this eternal cutting off is nirvana, yet non-arising applies only to the future and not to the past and present; is this not a contradiction? Although there is this passage, it does not contradict the meaning. The sense of the sutra is that the afflictions that take past and present suffering as their objects are cut off, and so it is called the cutting off of many sufferings. As the World-Honored One said: You should cut off desire for form, and when desire is cut off it is called the cutting off of form and complete knowledge of form, and so on at length up to consciousness. The meaning of the cutting off of past and present suffering should be understood the same way. If there are other sutras that speak of cutting off the afflictions of past, future and present, they should be explained according to the earlier reasoning, and there is no contradiction in meaning. Or in this sutra there is another intention: past afflictions are those arisen in past lives, and present afflictions are those arisen in the present life. As among the eighteen modes of craving in the conduct of craving, those arisen in the past are said with respect to the past life, and one should know the future and present are likewise. The afflictions arisen in these two times plant seeds in the present continuity for the arising of future afflictions, and when these seeds are cut off they too are said to be cut off. Just as when maturation is exhausted it is also said that karma is exhausted, the many sufferings and afflictions of the future, because they lack seeds, ultimately do not arise, and this is called cutting off. If it were otherwise, why would the past and present need to be cut off? There is no need to make effort to extinguish what has already ceased or is ceasing. If the unconditioned dharmas have no substance at all, why does the sutra say: Among all dharmas, whether conditioned or unconditioned, freedom from defilement is the foremost? How can nothing be established as foremost among nothings? I also do not say that the unconditioned dharmas have no substance at all, but they should exist as I explain. As it is said of this sound that before it, it did not exist, and after it, it does not exist; one cannot say that non-existence is existence, and thus the meaning of existence is established. One should understand the statement that the unconditioned exists in the same way.

有雖非有而可稱歎，故諸災橫畢竟非有名為離染。此於一切有非有中最為殊勝，為令所化深生欣樂，故應稱歎此為第一。若無為法唯非有者，無故不應名滅聖諦？且言聖諦其義云何？豈不此言屬無倒義。聖見有無皆無顛倒，謂聖於苦見唯是苦，於苦非有見唯非有，此於聖諦義有何違？如何非有而可立為第三聖諦？第二無間聖見及說，故成第三。若無為法其體唯無，空涅槃識應緣無境。此緣無境亦無有過，辯去來中當應思擇。若許無為別有實體，當有何失？復有何德？許便擁護毘婆沙宗是名為德，若有可護，天神定知自當擁護。然許實有，明虛妄計是名為失。所以者何？此非有體可得如色受等，亦非有用可得如眼耳等。又若別有，如何可立彼事之滅第六轉聲？由滅與事非互相屬，此彼相望非因果故。唯遮彼事，第六可成，彼事之無名為滅故。滅雖別有，而由彼事或得斷時方得此滅，可言此滅屬於彼事。何因此滅定屬此得？如契經言：苾蒭獲得現法涅槃。如何非有可言獲得？由得對治便獲永違煩惱，後有所依身故名得涅槃。復有聖教能顯涅槃唯以非有為其自性，謂契經言：所有眾苦皆無餘斷，各別捨棄盡、離染滅、靜息永沒。餘苦不續不取不生，此極寂靜、此極美妙，謂捨諸依及一切愛盡、離染滅，名為涅槃。云何不許言不生者依此無生故言不生？我等見此第七轉聲，於證滅有都無功力。何意故說依此無生？若依此言屬已有義，應本不生，涅槃常故。若依此言屬已得義，是則應許依道之得，故唯依道或依道得令苦不生。汝應信受。由此善釋經說喻言，如燈焰，涅槃心解脫亦爾。此經意說，如燈涅槃，唯燈焰謝，無別有物。如是世尊心得解脫，唯諸蘊滅，更無所有。阿毘達磨亦作是言：無事法雲何？謂諸無為法。言無事者，謂無體性。毘婆沙師不許此釋。若爾，彼釋事義云何？

(The treatise continues:) Although it is non-existent, it can still be praised, and so the ultimate non-existence of various calamities and misfortunes is called freedom from defilement. This is the most excellent among all existences and non-existences, and in order that those to be taught may give rise to deep delight, it should be praised as the foremost. If the unconditioned is only non-existence, then because it is non-existent, should it not be called the noble truth of cessation? Let us ask what the meaning of noble truth is. Does this word not belong to the sense of non-inverted? The noble see existence and non-existence without inversion: the noble see suffering only as suffering, and see the non-existence of suffering only as non-existence. What contradiction is there for the meaning of the noble truths? How can non-existence be established as the third noble truth? Because the second uninterrupted noble vision and the teaching establish it, it becomes the third. If the unconditioned is by nature only non-existence, then empty nirvana consciousness should have a non-existent object. There is no fault in cognizing a non-existent object either, which should be considered in discussing past and future. If one accepts that the unconditioned has a separate real substance, what fault is there, and what virtue? To accept it is said to protect the Vibhasa school, and that is called a virtue; if there is anything to protect, the gods will surely know and protect it themselves. Yet to accept real existence exposes a false notion, and that is called a fault. Why? Because this is not a substance that can be obtained like form and feeling, nor a function that can be obtained like that of the eye and ear. Moreover, if it exists separately, how can the sixth case ending be established for the cessation of that thing? Because cessation and the thing are not mutually belonging, and are not cause and effect to each other. Only by negating that thing can the sixth case be established, since the non-existence of that thing is called cessation. Although cessation exists separately, it is only when the thing is cut off or attained that this cessation is attained, and one can say this cessation belongs to that thing. Why does this cessation definitely belong to this attainment? As the sutra says: The bhikshu attains nirvana in this very life. How can non-existence be said to be attained? By attaining the antidote one gains permanent separation from the afflictions, and the body that is the basis of future existence is what is called attaining nirvana. There are also noble teachings showing that nirvana has non-existence alone as its own nature, as the sutra says: All the various sufferings are cut off without remainder, each separately given up, exhausted, free from defilement, ceased, stilled and forever submerged. The remaining suffering does not continue, is not taken up, does not arise; this is utterly tranquil, this is utterly exquisite, namely the abandonment of all supports and the exhaustion of all craving, freedom from defilement and cessation, called nirvana. How can one not accept the saying that what does not arise depends on this non-arising, so that one says it does not arise? We see that this seventh case ending has no power to realize cessation or existence at all. For what reason is it said that it depends on this non-arising? If "this" in the statement refers to what already exists, it should have been originally non-arising, and nirvana would be permanent. If "this" refers to what has been attained, then one should accept that it depends on the attainment of the path, and so suffering does not arise solely by depending on the path or on the attainment of the path. You should accept this. By this the sutra's simile is well explained: Like the flame of a lamp, the mind's liberation in nirvana is the same. The sense of this sutra is that, as with the nirvana of a lamp, the lamp's flame simply goes out and there is no separate thing. Thus when the World-Honored One's mind attained liberation, it was only that the aggregates ceased and nothing else remained. The Abhidharma also says: What are dharmas without a thing? They are the unconditioned dharmas. "Without a thing" means without own-nature. The Vibhasa masters do not accept this explanation. If so, how do they explain the meaning of "thing"?

彼言事者略有五種：一自性事，如有處言：若已得此事，彼成就此事。二所緣事，如有處言：一切法智所知隨其事。三繫縛事，如有處言：若於此事愛結所繫，彼於此事恚結繫耶？四所因事，如有處言：有事法雲何？謂諸有為法。五所攝事，如有處言：田事宅事妻子等事。今於此中說因名事，顯無為法都無有因，是故無為雖實有物，常無用故無因無果。總論已竟。於諸果中應說何果何因所得？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) They say that "thing" is roughly of five kinds: first, a thing as own-nature, as in a passage that says: If one has attained this thing, he accomplishes this thing. Second, a thing as object, as in a passage that says: All dharmas known by wisdom are things accordingly. Third, a thing as bondage, as in a passage that says: If one is bound by the fetter of craving in this thing, is he also bound by the fetter of hatred in this thing? Fourth, a thing as cause, as in a passage that says: What are dharmas with a thing? They are all conditioned dharmas. Fifth, a thing as inclusion, as in a passage that says: fields, houses, wives, children and the like. Here, what is called a thing is a cause, showing that the unconditioned dharmas have no cause at all; therefore, although the unconditioned really exists as an entity, it is permanent and without function, and so has no cause and no effect. The general discussion is complete. Among the fruits, which fruit should be said to be obtained by which cause? The verse says:

後因果異熟，前因增上果，

The later cause, the fruit of maturation; the earlier cause, the dominant fruit,

同類遍等流，俱相應士用。

The homogeneous and the pervasive, the fruit of outflow; the co-existent and the associated, the fruit of human effort.

論曰：言後因者，謂異熟因，於六因中最後說故，初異熟果此因所得。言前因者，謂能作因，於六因中最初說故，後增上果此因所得。增上之果，名增上果。唯無障住，有何增上？即由無障得增上名。或能作因亦有勝力，如十處界於五識身，諸有情業於器世界，耳等對於眼識生等，亦有展轉增上生力，聞已便生欣見欲故。此等增上，如應當思。同類、遍行得等流果，此二因果皆似因故。俱有相應得士用果，非越士體有別士用，即此所得名士用果。此士用名為目何法？即目諸法所有作用，如士用故得士用名，如世間說鴉足藥草醉象將軍。為唯此二有士用果、為餘亦然？有說：餘因亦有此果，唯除異熟，由士用果與因俱生或無間生，異熟不爾。有餘師說：此異熟因亦有隔越遠士用果，譬如農夫所收果實。異熟等果其相云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The "later cause" is the cause of maturation, mentioned last among the six causes, and the first, the fruit of maturation, is obtained by this cause. The "earlier cause" is the efficient cause, mentioned first among the six causes, and the last, the dominant fruit, is obtained by this cause. The fruit of dominance is called the dominant fruit. If there is merely no obstruction, what dominance is there? It is through non-obstruction that it receives the name of dominance. Or the efficient cause also has superior power: for example, the ten bases and elements with respect to the five groups of consciousness, the karma of sentient beings with respect to the world as vessel, and ear and so on in relation to the arising of eye-consciousness and so on, also have the power of mutual dominant arising, since having heard, one wishes to see. Such dominance should be considered thus. The homogeneous and pervasive causes obtain the fruit of outflow, because both cause and fruit resemble the cause. The co-existent and associated causes obtain the fruit of human effort, because it is not that there is a separate human effort beyond the body of the person; what is obtained from this is called the fruit of human effort. What dharmas does this name human effort refer to? It refers to the functions of all dharmas, so called human effort because it has the function of a person, as in the worldly sayings "crow-foot herb" and "drunken elephant general". Do only these two have the fruit of human effort, or do the others too? Some say: The other causes also have this fruit, except maturation, because the fruit of human effort arises together with or immediately after its cause, whereas maturation does not. Other masters say: The cause of maturation also has a fruit of human effort at a distance, like the harvest of a farmer. What are the characteristics of fruits such as maturation? The verse says:

異熟無記法，有情有記生，

Maturation is indeterminate dharma, born of sentient beings and of the determinate,

等流似自因，離繫由慧盡。

The outflow resembles its own cause, disjunction is exhausted by wisdom.

若因彼力生，是果名士用，

If it arises by the power of a cause, it is called human effort,

除前有為法，有為增上果。

Except the earlier conditioned dharmas, conditioned dharmas have dominant fruit.

論曰：唯於無覆無記法中有異熟果。為此亦通非有情數、唯局有情？為通等流及所長養？應知唯是有記所生，一切不善及善有漏能記異熟，故名有記。從彼後時異熟方起，非俱無間，名有記生。如是名為異熟果相。非有情數亦從業生，何非異熟？以共有故。謂餘亦能如是受用。夫異熟果必無有餘共受用義，非餘造業餘可因斯受異熟果。其增上果亦業所生，何得共受？共業生故。似自因法名等流果，謂似同類、遍行二因。若遍行因亦得等流果，何不許此即名同類因？此果但由地等染故，與因相似不由種類，若由種類果亦似因，此果所因乃名同類。故作是問：若是同類因亦遍行因耶？應作四句。第一句者，非遍行法為同類因。第二句者，他部遍法為遍行因。第三句者，自部遍法為遍行因。第四句者，除前諸相。由慧盡法名離繫果。滅故名盡，擇故名慧，即說擇滅名離繫果。若法因彼勢力所生，即說此法名士用果。如因下地加行心力上地有漏無漏定生，及因清淨靜慮心力變化心生，如是等類擇滅應言由道力得。諸有為法，除前已生，是餘有為之增上果。士用、增上二果何殊？士用果名唯對作者，增上果稱通對此餘。如匠所成，對能成匠，具得士用、增上果名；對餘非匠，唯增上果。於上所說六種因中，何位何因取果與果？頌曰：

The treatise says: The fruit of maturation exists only among unobstructed neutral dharmas. Does this also extend to what is not counted among sentient beings, or is it limited to sentient beings? Does it extend to outflow and to what is nourished? One should know it is born only of the determinate: all unwholesome and wholesome dharmas with outflows can give rise to maturation and are therefore called determinate. Maturation arises later from them, not simultaneously or immediately; this is called born of the determinate. This is called the characteristic of the fruit of maturation. What is not counted among sentient beings also arises from karma, so why is it not maturation? Because it is held in common. That is, others can also enjoy it in this way. The fruit of maturation certainly has no meaning of being enjoyed in common by others, for it is not that others do the karma and others may receive its maturation as a result. The dominant fruit is also produced by karma, so how can it be enjoyed in common? Because it is produced by common karma. A dharma resembling its own cause is called the fruit of outflow, that is, resembling the two causes, the homogeneous and the pervasive. If the pervasive cause also gets the fruit of outflow, why not accept that it too is called the homogeneous cause? This fruit is due only to defilement of the same level and so on, resembling its cause not by kind; if the fruit resembled its cause by kind, the cause of this fruit would be called the homogeneous cause. Therefore this question is asked: If it is a homogeneous cause, is it also a pervasive cause? One should make four alternatives. The first: a non-pervasive dharma that is a homogeneous cause. The second: a pervasive dharma of another group that is a pervasive cause. The third: a pervasive dharma of its own group that is a pervasive cause. The fourth: the remaining cases apart from the previous. The dharma exhausted by wisdom is called the fruit of disjunction. It is called "exhausted" because it is ceased, and "wisdom" because it is by discrimination; this is the cessation through discrimination called the fruit of disjunction. If a dharma arises by the power of a cause, that dharma is called the fruit of human effort. For example, the concentrations of the higher levels with or without outflows arise by the power of the preparatory mind of the lower level, and a transformation mind arises by the power of a pure dhyana mind; such cessations through discrimination should be said to be obtained by the power of the path. The conditioned dharmas, apart from those already arisen earlier, are the dominant fruit of the other conditioned dharmas. How do the fruits of human effort and dominance differ? The name fruit of human effort applies only in relation to the agent, whereas the name dominant fruit is said in relation to this and also to the others. For example, what a craftsman makes, in relation to the craftsman who can make it, fully has the names of both the fruit of human effort and the dominant fruit; in relation to others who are not craftsmen, it is only the dominant fruit. Among the six causes spoken of above, in what stage does which cause take a fruit and give a fruit? The verse says:

五取果唯現，二與果亦然，

Five take a fruit only in the present, two give a fruit likewise,

過現與二因，一與唯過去。

In the past and present they give to two causes, and one gives only in the past.

論曰：五因取果唯於現在，定非過去，彼已取故；亦非未來，彼無用故。亦應如是說，能作因非定有果，故此不說。俱有、相應與果亦爾，唯於現在，由此二因取果與果必俱時故。同類、遍行二因與果通於過現，過去可然。如何現在與等流果？有等流果無間生故。若果已生，因便過去，名已與果，不應更與。善同類因有時取果而非與果，應作四句。第一句者，謂斷善根時最後所捨得。第二句者，謂續善根時最初所得得，應說爾時續者前得。第三句者，謂不斷善根於所餘諸位。第四句者，謂除前相。又於不善同類因中亦有四句。第一句者，謂離欲貪時最後所捨得。第二句者，謂退欲貪時最初所得得，應說爾時退者前得。第三句者，謂未離欲貪於所餘諸位。第四句者，謂除前相。有覆無記同類因中亦有四句，於阿羅漢得時、退時、未得及餘，如理應說。無覆無記同類因中有順後句，謂與果時必亦取果。或時取果而非與果，謂阿羅漢最後諸蘊，約有所緣剎那差別。善同類因亦有四句。第一句者，謂善心無間起染無記心。第二句者，謂與上相違。第三句者，謂善心無間還起善心。第四句者，謂除前相。不善心等如其所應，亦有四句，準例應說。取果、與果其義云何？能為彼種故名取果，正與彼力故名與果。異熟與果唯於過去，由異熟果無與因俱及無間故。復有餘師，前五果外別說四果：一安立果，謂如水輪為風輪果，乃至草等為大地果。二加行果，謂如無生智等遠為不淨等果。三和合果，謂如眼識等為眼根等果。四修習果，謂如化心等為諸靜慮果。如是四果皆是士用、增上果攝。說因果已。復應思擇，此中何法幾因所生？法略有四，謂染汙法、異熟生法、初無漏法、三所餘法。餘法者何？謂除異熟餘無記法，除初無漏諸餘善法。如是四法，頌曰：

The treatise says: The five causes take their fruit only in the present, definitely not in the past, because that has already been taken, and not in the future, because it has no function. It should also be said that the efficient cause does not definitely have a fruit, and so it is not mentioned here. The co-existent and associated causes also give fruits likewise only in the present, because by these two causes taking a fruit and giving a fruit must be simultaneous. The homogeneous and pervasive causes give fruits in both the past and the present; the past is thus possible. How does the present give the fruit of outflow? Because the fruit of outflow arises immediately after. If the fruit has already arisen, the cause has passed into the past and is called having already given the fruit, and should not give again. The wholesome homogeneous cause sometimes takes a fruit but does not give a fruit, and one should make four alternatives. The first: the last possession abandoned when the good roots are severed. The second: the first possession obtained when the good roots are reconnected, which should be said to be the prior possession that is reconnected at that time. The third: the remaining stages of one who does not sever the good roots. The fourth: the remaining cases apart from the above. Also, among the unwholesome homogeneous causes there are four alternatives. The first: the last possession abandoned when one becomes free from desire and craving. The second: the first possession obtained when one falls back from desire and craving, which should be said to be the prior possession that regresses at that time. The third: the remaining stages of one not yet free from desire and craving. The fourth: the remaining cases apart from the above. Among the obstructed neutral homogeneous causes there are also four alternatives, in the arhat's attainment, regression, non-attainment and other cases, which should be stated accordingly. Among the unobstructed neutral homogeneous causes there is only the last alternative: when it gives a fruit it must also take a fruit. Or sometimes it takes a fruit but does not give a fruit, namely the last aggregates of an arhat, which differ in respect of the moments of objects. The wholesome homogeneous cause also has four alternatives. The first: a wholesome mind immediately followed by a defiled or neutral mind. The second: the opposite of this. The third: a wholesome mind immediately followed again by a wholesome mind. The fourth: the remaining cases apart from the above. The unwholesome mind and others, as appropriate, also have four alternatives, and should be stated by analogy. What is the meaning of taking a fruit and giving a fruit? Being able to be the seed of that fruit is called taking a fruit; precisely giving that fruit its power is called giving a fruit. The maturation cause gives its fruit only in the past, because the fruit of maturation is neither simultaneous with its cause nor immediately after it. Some other masters speak separately of four fruits in addition to the above five: first, the fruit of establishment, as the water-wheel is the fruit of the wind-wheel, up to grass and so on being the fruit of the great earth. Second, the fruit of application, as the knowledge of non-arising is distantly the fruit of meditation on the impure and so on. Third, the fruit of combination, as eye-consciousness and so on are the fruit of the eye faculty and so on. Fourth, the fruit of cultivation, as the transformation mind and so on are the fruit of the dhyanas. These four fruits are all included in the fruits of human effort and dominance. Having spoken of causes and fruits, we should further consider, among these, which dharma arises from how many causes. Dharmas are roughly of four kinds: defiled dharmas, dharmas born of maturation, the first undefiled dharmas, and the three remaining. What are the remaining dharmas? They are the neutral dharmas other than maturation, and the other wholesome dharmas other than the first undefiled ones. As for these four kinds of dharmas, the verse says:

染汙異熟生，餘初聖如次，

Defiled, born of maturation, the remaining, the first noble, in order,

除異熟遍二，及同類餘生，

Except maturation, pervasive, the two, and homogeneous, the others arise,

此謂心心所，餘及除相應。

These are mind and mental factors, the others, and except the associated.

論曰：諸染汙法，除異熟因，餘五因生。異熟生法，除遍行因，餘五因生。三所餘法，雙除異熟、遍行二因，餘四因生。初無漏法，雙除前二及同類因，餘三因生。如是四法，為說何等？謂心心所不相應行及色四法。復幾因生？如心心所所除因外及除相應，應知餘法從四三二餘因所生。此中染汙異熟生法，餘四因生。三所餘法，餘三因生。初無漏法，餘二因生。一因生法，決定無有。

The treatise says: Defiled dharmas, apart from the cause of maturation, arise from the other five causes. Dharmas born of maturation, apart from the pervasive cause, arise from the other five causes. The three remaining dharmas, apart from both maturation and pervasive causes, arise from the other four causes. The first undefiled dharmas, apart from the two earlier causes and the homogeneous cause, arise from the other three causes. What do these four kinds of dharmas refer to? They are the four kinds of dharmas: mind, mental factors, non-associated formations and form. How many causes do they arise from? As for mind and mental factors, apart from the causes excluded and apart from the associated, one should know the other dharmas arise from four, three or two of the other causes. Among these, defiled dharmas and those born of maturation arise from the other four causes; the three remaining arise from the other three causes; the first undefiled dharmas arise from the other two causes. A dharma arising from one cause alone definitely does not exist.

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by the Tripitaka Master Xuanzang by imperial order.

分別根品第二之五

Chapter 2, Analysis of the Faculties, Part 5.

廣說因已。緣復云何？頌曰：

Having discussed the causes at length, what then of the conditions? The verse says:

說有四種緣，因緣五因性，

It is said there are four kinds of conditions, the causal condition is the nature of the five causes,

等無間非後，心心所已生，

The immediately preceding condition is not the later, the minds and mental factors that have arisen,

所緣一切法，增上即能作。

The object condition is all dharmas, the dominant condition is the efficient cause.

論曰：於何處說？謂契經中。如契經中說四緣性，謂因緣性、等無間緣性、所緣緣性、增上緣性。此中性者是緣種類。於六因內除能作因，所餘五因是因緣性。除阿羅漢臨涅槃時最後心心所法，諸餘已生心心所法是等無間緣性。此緣生法等而無間，依是義立等無間名。由此色等皆不可立等無間緣，不等生故。謂欲界色或無間生欲界色界二無表色，或無間生欲界無漏二無表色。以諸色法雜亂現前，等無間緣生無雜亂，故色不立等無間緣。尊者世友作如是言：於一身中一長養色相續不斷，復有第二長養色生，不相違害，故不可立等無間緣。大德復言：以諸色法無間生起或少或多，謂或有時從多生少，如燒稻稈大聚為灰。或時復有從少生多，如細種生諾瞿陀樹，根莖枝葉漸次增榮，聳幹垂條多所蔭映。豈不心所無間生時亦有少多品類非等？謂善不善無記心中，有尋有伺三摩地等，此於異類實有少多，然自類中無非等義，謂無少受無間生多，或復從多無間生少，想等亦爾，無非等過。豈唯自類前能為後等無間緣？不爾。云何？前心品法總為後品等無間緣，非唯自類。且於受等自體類中無少生多，以說等義。唯執同類相續者說，唯自類有等無間緣，心唯生心、受唯生受，乃至廣說。若從無染無間染生，此染心中所有煩惱，用先滅煩惱為等無間緣。如出滅定，心還用先滅正入滅定，心為緣故起。彼說非善，初無漏心應闕此緣而得生故。不相應行亦如諸色雜亂現前，故非等無間緣。三界及不繫可俱現前故，何緣不許未來世有等無間緣？以未來法雜亂而住無前後故。如何世尊知未來世此法無間、此法應生？比過現法而現知故。傳說世尊見從過去如此類業此類果生，是法無間生如是法。又從現在如此類業此類果生，是法無間生如是法。如是見已，便於未來諸亂住法，能正了達此法無間此法應生。雖如是知而非比智。

The treatise says: Where is this taught? In the sutras. As a sutra speaks of the nature of the four conditions, namely the causal condition, the immediately preceding condition, the object condition and the dominant condition. Here "nature" refers to the kind of condition. Among the six causes, apart from the efficient cause, the other five causes are of the nature of the causal condition. Apart from the last minds and mental factors of an arhat at the time of entering nirvana, all other minds and mental factors that have arisen are of the nature of the immediately preceding condition. The dharmas this condition produces are equal and uninterrupted, and on this meaning the name immediately preceding condition is established. For this reason form and the like cannot be established as the immediately preceding condition, because they do not arise as equals. For example, desire-realm form may immediately give rise to the two kinds of non-informing form of the desire and form realms, or immediately give rise to the two kinds of undefiled non-informing form of the desire realm. Because forms appear in mixed confusion, the immediately preceding condition produces without confusion, and so form is not established as an immediately preceding condition. The Venerable Vasumitra said: In one body one continuity of nourished form continues without interruption, and a second nourished form arises without conflict, and so it cannot be established as an immediately preceding condition. The Elder also said: Because form dharmas arise in succession either in lesser or greater amount, sometimes much gives rise to little, as when a great heap of burned rice stalks becomes ashes. Sometimes little gives rise to much, as a tiny seed gives rise to a banyan tree whose roots, trunk, branches and leaves gradually flourish, with towering trunk and hanging boughs shading many. But is it not so that when mental factors arise in succession there are also differences of less and more in kind, not equal? For instance, in wholesome, unwholesome and neutral minds there are samadhi accompanied by initial and sustained thought and so on; these really differ in less and more among different kinds. However, within their own kind there is no meaning of inequality: there is no small feeling immediately giving rise to a larger one, nor a larger giving rise to a smaller; perception and so on are likewise, with no fault of inequality. Is it that only within their own kind the earlier can serve as the immediately preceding condition for the later? Not so. How then? The earlier mental group as a whole serves as the immediately preceding condition for the later group, not only within their own kind. Moreover within feeling itself as a kind there is no small giving rise to large, in accordance with the meaning of equal. Only those who hold that the same kind continues say that the immediately preceding condition exists only within one's own kind, mind giving rise only to mind and feeling only to feeling, and so on at length. If a defiled mind arises immediately from an undefiled one, the afflictions in that defiled mind use the previously ceased afflictions as the immediately preceding condition. For example, when emerging from the cessation attainment, the mind arises again using the mind that had previously ceased, the mind that was just then entering cessation, as its condition. They say it is not wholesome; the first undefiled mind would lack this condition and yet arise. Non-associated formations, like forms, appear in mixed confusion, and so are not the immediately preceding condition. The three realms and the unbound can appear simultaneously, so why is it not accepted that the future has an immediately preceding condition? Because future dharmas abide in confusion with no before and after. How then does the World-Honored One know that in the future this dharma follows immediately and this dharma will arise? Because he knows it directly by comparison with past and present dharmas. It is said that the World-Honored One saw that from past karma of such a kind such a fruit arose, and that this dharma gave rise immediately to a dharma of such a kind; and also from present karma of such a kind such a fruit arises, and this dharma gives rise immediately to a dharma of such a kind. Having seen thus, he can correctly understand, regarding the future dharmas abiding in confusion, that this dharma follows immediately and this dharma will arise. Although he knows thus, it is not inferential knowledge.

由佛比類過去現在因果次第，便於未來亂住諸法能現了達，謂未來世如是有情造如是業招如是果，是願智攝故非比智。若爾，世尊未見前際，於後際法應不能知。有餘復言：有情身內有未來世果因先兆，是不相應行蘊差別。佛唯觀此便知未來，非要現遊靜慮通慧。若爾，諸佛便於未來占相故知，非為現證。故如經部諸師所言，世尊舉意遍知諸法非比非占。此說為善。如世尊說：諸佛德用、諸佛境界不可思議。若於未來無定前後次第安立，何故但言世第一法無間唯生苦法智忍不生餘法？如是廣說，乃至金剛喻定無間，唯生盡智不生餘法。若此法生繫屬彼法，要彼無間此乃得生，如芽等生要藉種等。然此非有等無間緣。諸阿羅漢最後心心所，何緣故說非等無間緣？無餘心等續此起故。豈不如是無間滅心亦名為意？後心無間識既不生應不名意，意是依所顯非作用所顯。此最後心有所依義，餘緣闕故後識不生，等無間緣作用所顯。若法此緣取為果已，定無諸法及諸有情能為障礙令彼不起，故最後心雖得名意，而不可說等無間緣。若法與心為等無間，彼法亦是心無間耶？應作四句。第一句者，謂無心定出心心所，及第二等二定剎那。第二句者，謂初所起二定剎那，及有心位諸心心所生住異滅。第三句者，謂初所起二定剎那，及有心位心心所法。第四句者，謂第二等二定剎那，及無心定出心心所生住異滅。若法與心為等無間，與無心定為無間耶？應作四句。謂前第三第四句為今第一第二句，即前第一第二句為今第三第四句。從二定出諸心心所，望入定心中間遠隔，如何為彼等無間耶？中間不隔心心所故。如是已釋等無間緣。所緣緣性，即一切法望心心所，隨其所應。謂如眼識及相應法，以一切色為所緣緣。如是耳識及相應法，以一切聲。鼻識相應以一切香。舌識相應以一切味。身識相應以一切觸。

(The treatise continues:) By the Buddha's comparing the order of causes and fruits in the past and present, he can directly understand the dharmas abiding in confusion in the future, namely that in the future such sentient beings will do such karma and receive such fruit; this is included in the knowledge of vows and not inferential knowledge. If so, the World-Honored One did not see the previous limit and should not be able to know the later limit. Others say further: Within the bodies of sentient beings there are omens of the causes of future fruits, which are a distinction among the aggregate of non-associated formations. The Buddha, merely observing these, knows the future, and does not need to personally wander in dhyana and penetrating wisdom. If so, the Buddhas would know the future by divining signs and not by direct realization. Therefore, as the Sautrantika masters say, the World-Honored One, merely by raising his mind, knows all dharmas completely, neither by inference nor by divination. This explanation is good. As the World-Honored One said: The virtues and functions and the realm of the Buddhas are inconceivable. If in the future there were no established order of before and after, why does it say that the supreme worldly dharma gives rise immediately only to the acceptance of the knowledge of suffering and not to other dharmas? And so on at length, up to the diamond-like concentration immediately giving rise only to the knowledge of exhaustion and not to other dharmas. If the arising of one dharma belongs to another dharma, it must be that this dharma arises immediately after that one, as sprouts and so on arise only by relying on seeds and so on. Yet there is no immediately preceding condition here. Why is the last mind and mental factors of arhats said not to be an immediately preceding condition? Because no other mind continues from it. But is not the mind that ceased in this way, immediately before, also called manas? Since the next consciousness does not arise immediately after, it should not be called manas; but manas is shown by its basis, not by its function. This last mind has the meaning of a basis, but because other conditions are lacking, later consciousness does not arise, whereas the immediately preceding condition is shown by function. If a dharma has taken this condition as its fruit, then no dharma and no sentient being can obstruct it so that it does not arise; therefore although the last mind receives the name of manas, it cannot be called an immediately preceding condition. If a dharma is the immediately preceding condition of the mind, is that dharma also immediately preceded by the mind? One should make four alternatives. The first: mind and mental factors emerging from the attainment without mind, and the second and so on moments of the two attainments. The second: the first moment arisen of the two attainments, and the arising, abiding, change and ceasing of mind and mental factors in the stage with mind. The third: the first moment arisen of the two attainments, and mind and mental factors in the stage with mind. The fourth: the second and so on moments of the two attainments, and the arising, abiding, change and ceasing of mind and mental factors emerging from the attainment without mind. If a dharma is the immediately preceding condition of mind, is it also the immediate one for the attainment without mind? One should make four alternatives. That is, the earlier third and fourth alternatives become the present first and second, and the earlier first and second alternatives become the present third and fourth. The minds and mental factors emerging from the two attainments, in relation to the mind entering the attainment, are separated by a long gap in between, so how can they be its immediately preceding condition? Because the intervening minds and mental factors do not intervene. Thus the immediately preceding condition has been explained. The nature of the object condition is all dharmas in relation to mind and mental factors, as appropriate. For example, eye-consciousness and its associated dharmas have all forms as their object condition. Likewise ear-consciousness and its associated dharmas have all sounds; nose-consciousness and its associated ones all smells; tongue-consciousness and its associated ones all tastes; body-consciousness and its associated ones all tangibles.

意識相應以一切法為所緣緣。若法與彼法為所緣，無時此與彼非所緣，於不緣位亦所緣攝，被緣、不緣其相一故。譬如薪等，於不燒時亦名所燒，相無異故。心心所法如於所緣處、事、剎那三皆決定，於所依亦有如是決定耶？應言亦有如是決定，然於現在親附自所依，過去未來與所依相離。有說：在過去亦親附所依。如是已釋所緣緣性。增上緣性即能作因，以即能作因為增上緣故。此緣體廣名增上緣，一切皆是增上緣故。既一切法亦所緣緣，此增上緣何獨體廣？俱有諸法未嘗為所緣，然為增上故，唯此體廣。或所作廣名增上緣，以一切法各除自性與一切有為為增上緣故。頗有法於法全非四緣不？有，謂自性於自性，於他性亦有。謂有為於無為，無為於無為。如是諸緣於何位法而興作用？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) Mental consciousness and its associated dharmas have all dharmas as their object condition. If a dharma is an object for another dharma, there is no time when this is not an object for that; even in a stage when it is not cognized it is still included as an object, because being cognized and not being cognized have one and the same character. For example, firewood and the like, even when not burning, are called what is burned, because their characteristics do not differ. For mind and mental factors, just as with regard to object, place, and moment all three are definite, is there such definiteness also with regard to the basis? It should be said that there is such definiteness too, but in the present it is close to its own basis, while past and future are separated from the basis. Some say: In the past it is also close to its basis. Thus the nature of the object condition has been explained. The nature of the dominant condition is the efficient cause, since the efficient cause itself is the dominant condition. This condition is called dominant because its substance is broad, since all dharmas are dominant conditions. Since all dharmas are also object conditions, why is it only the dominant condition whose substance is broad? Co-existent dharmas have never been objects but are dominant conditions, and so only this one is broad. Or it is called the dominant condition because what it does is broad, since every dharma, apart from its own nature, is a dominant condition for all conditioned dharmas. Is there a dharma that is entirely none of the four conditions for another dharma? Yes: the own-nature in relation to its own nature, and also in relation to other natures. That is, the conditioned in relation to the unconditioned, and the unconditioned in relation to the unconditioned. In what stage of a dharma do these conditions exercise their function? The verse says:

二因於正滅，三因於正生，

Two causes act at the time of ceasing, three causes at the time of arising,

餘二緣相違，而興於作用。

The other two conditions are opposite, and exercise their function.

論曰：前說五因為因緣性，二因作用於正滅時。正滅時言顯法現在，滅現前故，名正滅時。俱有、相應於法滅位方興作用，由此二因令俱生果有作用故。所言三因於正生者，謂未來法於正生位生現前故，名正生時。同類、遍行、異熟三種，於法生位作用方興。已說因緣二時作用，二緣作用與此相違。等無間緣於法生位而興作用，以彼生時前心心所與其處故。若所緣緣能緣滅位而興作用，以心心所要現在時方取境故。唯增上緣於一切位皆無障住，故彼作用隨無障位一切無遮。已說諸緣及興作用。應言何法由幾緣生？頌曰：

The treatise says: Of the five causes spoken of earlier as the nature of the causal condition, two causes have their function at the time of ceasing. The words "at the time of ceasing" show that the dharma is present and ceasing is present, and so it is called the time of ceasing. The co-existent and associated causes exercise their function only in the stage of the dharma's ceasing, because these two causes give their simultaneously arisen fruit a function. As for the statement that three causes act at the time of arising: a future dharma, in the stage of arising, is produced into the present, and so it is called the time of arising. The three kinds, homogeneous, pervasive and maturation, exercise their function only in the stage of the dharma's arising. Having spoken of the functions of the causal condition at two times, the functions of the other two conditions are opposite to these. The immediately preceding condition exercises its function in the stage of the dharma's arising, because when it arises the earlier mind and mental factors give it its place. The object condition exercises its function in the stage where the cognizing ceases, because mind and mental factors take their object only in the present time. Only the dominant condition has no obstruction in any stage, and so its function is unobstructed in all stages according to the stage of non-obstruction. The conditions and their exercise of function have been explained. Which dharma should be said to arise from how many conditions? The verse says:

心心所由四，二定但由三，

Mind and mental factors arise from four, the two attainments from only three,

餘由二緣生，非天次等故。

The rest arise from two conditions, because there is no sequence and so on.

論曰：心心所法由四緣生，此中因緣，謂五因性。等無間緣，謂前無間已生，非後心心所法。所緣緣者，謂隨所應，或色等五或一切法。增上緣者，謂隨所應，各除自性，餘一切法。滅盡、無想二定由三，除所緣緣，非能緣故。由因緣者，謂由二因：一俱有因，謂生等相；二同類因，謂前已生同地善法。等無間緣，謂入定心及相應法。增上緣者，謂如前說。如是二定，心等引生。礙心等起故，與心等但為等無間，非等無間緣。餘不相應及諸色法，由因、增上二緣所生。一切世間唯從如上所說諸因諸緣所起，非自在天我勝性等一因所起，此有何因？若一切成許由因者，豈不便捨一切世間由自在等一因生論。又諸世間非自在等一因所起，次第等故。謂諸世間若自在等一因生者，則應一切俱時而生非次第起；現見諸法次第而生，故知定非一因所起。若執自在隨欲故然，謂彼欲令此法今起、此法今滅、此於後時，是則應成非一因起，亦由樂欲差別生故。或差別欲應一時生，所因自在無差別故。若欲差別更待餘因不俱起者，則非一切唯用自在一法為因。或所待因亦應更待餘因差別方次第生，則所待因應無邊際。若更不待餘差別因，此因應無次第生義，則差別欲非次第生。若許諸因展轉差別無有邊際，信無始故，徒執自在為諸法因，不越釋門因緣正理。若言自在欲雖頓生，而諸世間不俱起者，由隨自在欲所生故，理亦不然。彼自在欲，前位與後無差別故。又彼自在作大功力，生諸世間得何義利？若為發喜生諸世間，此喜離餘方便不發，是則自在於發喜中既必待餘，應非自在。於喜既爾，餘亦應然，差別因緣不可得故。或若自在生地獄等無量苦具逼害有情，為見如斯發生自喜。咄哉！何用此自在為？依彼頌言，誠為善說。

The treatise says: Mind and mental factors arise from four conditions. Among these, the causal condition is the nature of the five causes; the immediately preceding condition is the earlier mind and mental factors that have just arisen immediately before, not the later ones; the object condition is, as appropriate, the five forms or all dharmas; the dominant condition is, as appropriate, every other dharma apart from its own nature. The two attainments, of cessation and of non-perception, arise from three, excluding the object condition, because they cannot cognize. Regarding the causal condition, they arise from two causes: first, the co-existent cause, which is the characteristics of arising and so on; second, the homogeneous cause, which is previously arisen wholesome dharmas of the same level. The immediately preceding condition is the mind entering the attainment and its associated dharmas. The dominant condition is as said before. In these two attainments mind and so on bring about arising. Because they obstruct the arising of mind and so on, in relation to mind and so on they are only immediately preceding and not an immediately preceding condition. The other non-associated formations and form dharmas arise from the causal and dominant conditions. All the world arises only from the causes and conditions spoken of above and not from a single cause such as the sovereign god or the primal nature of the Samkhya, and what cause is there for this? If it is accepted by all that things arise from causes, does one not then abandon the theory that all the world arises from a single cause such as a sovereign god? Moreover the various worlds do not arise from one cause such as a sovereign god, because there is sequence and so on. That is, if the various worlds arose from a single cause such as a sovereign god, then all would arise simultaneously and not in sequence; yet we see dharmas arise in sequence, and so we know they certainly do not arise from a single cause. If one holds that the sovereign god does it according to his wish, namely that he wishes this dharma to arise now, that dharma to cease now, and this one later, then it should be established that they do not arise from one cause, since they arise from differences of wish. Or the differing wishes should arise at once, since the sovereign by whom they arise has no difference. If it is said that differing wishes depend on other causes and do not arise together, then not all things have only the sovereign as their one cause. Or the causes depended on should also depend on yet other differing causes before arising in sequence, in which case the causes depended on would be endless. If they do not depend on any further differing causes, this cause should have no meaning of arising in sequence, and then the differing wishes would not arise in sequence. If one accepts that causes are mutually different without end, believing in the beginningless, then merely holding to the sovereign as the cause of all dharmas does not go beyond the correct principle of causes and conditions. If one says the sovereign's wish arises all at once, but the various worlds do not arise together because they arise according to the sovereign's wish, this is also unreasonable. Because the sovereign's wish does not differ between earlier and later stages. Moreover, what benefit does that sovereign gain by making great efforts to produce the various worlds? If he produces the worlds in order to give rise to joy, this joy does not arise without other means, and then, since the sovereign must depend on others in giving rise to joy, he should not be sovereign. If so with joy, so with the rest, because no differing causes and conditions can be found. Or if the sovereign produces hells and countless instruments of suffering to torment sentient beings, in order to see this and give rise to his own joy, then alas, what use is such a sovereign? The verse spoken of him is indeed well said.

由險利能燒，可畏恆逼害，

Because he is dangerous, sharp, burning, fearful, and always harming,

樂食血肉髓，故名魯達羅。

And delights in eating blood, flesh and marrow, he is named Rudra.

又若信受一切世間唯自在天一因所起，則為誹撥現見世間所餘因緣人功等事。若言自在待餘因緣助發功能方成因者，但是朋敬自在天言，離所餘因緣不見別用故。或彼自在要餘因緣助方能生，應非自在。若執初起自在為因，餘後續生待餘因者，則初所起不待餘因，應無始成，猶如自在。我勝性等隨其所應，如自在天應廣徵遣，故無有法唯一因生。奇哉世間不修勝慧，如愚禽獸，良足可悲。彼彼生中別別造業，自受異熟及士用果，而妄計有自在等因。且止破邪，應辯正義。前言餘法由二緣生，於中雲何大種、所造，自他相望互為因緣？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) Moreover, if one believes that all the world arises from the sovereign god alone as a single cause, one slanders the other causes and conditions visibly seen in the world, such as human effort. If it is said that the sovereign becomes a cause only when other causes and conditions help bring out his power, then this is merely flattering the sovereign god, since apart from other causes and conditions no separate function is seen. Or if the sovereign can produce only with the help of other causes and conditions, he should not be sovereign. If one holds that the sovereign is the cause of the initial arising, and the later continuing arisings depend on other causes, then the initial arising does not depend on other causes and should be established as beginningless, like the sovereign. The primal nature of the Samkhya and the like should be refuted at length according to what applies, as with the sovereign god; therefore no dharma arises from a single cause alone. How strange that the world does not cultivate superior wisdom, and like foolish beasts is truly pitiable. In each birth they separately do karma and themselves receive the fruit of maturation and the fruit of human effort, yet falsely hold that there are causes such as the sovereign. Enough of refuting error; the correct meaning should now be discussed. Earlier it was said that the other dharmas arise from two conditions; among these, how do the great elements and the derived forms serve each other as causes and conditions? The verse says:

大為大二因，為所造五種，

The great elements for the great elements are two causes, for the derived they are five kinds,

造為造三種，為大唯一因。

The derived for the derived are three kinds, for the great elements only one cause.

論曰：初言大為大二因者，是諸大種更互相望，但為俱有同類因義。大於所造能為五因。何等為五？謂生、依、立、持、養別故。如是五因，但是能作因之差別。從彼起故說為生因，生已隨逐大種轉故。如依師等說為依因，能任持故。如壁持畫說為立因。不斷因故說為持因。增長因故說為養因。如是則顯大與所造為起、變、持、住、長因性。諸所造色自互相望容有三因，所謂俱有、同類、異熟。其能作因無差別轉，故不恆數。俱有因者，謂隨心轉身語二業，非餘造色。同類因者，一切前生於後同類。異熟因者，謂身語業能招異熟眼根等果。所造於大但為一因，謂異熟因。身語二業能招異熟，大種果故。前已總說諸心心所前能為後等無間緣，未決定說何心無間有幾心生，復從幾心有何心起？今當定說，謂且略說有十二心。云何十二？頌曰：

The treatise says: First, "the great elements for the great elements are two causes" means that the great elements in relation to one another have only the meaning of co-existent and homogeneous causes. The great elements can be five causes for the derived. What are the five? They are the differences of producing, relying, establishing, sustaining and nourishing. These five causes are only distinctions of the efficient cause. Because the derived arises from them, they are called the cause of producing; having arisen, it follows and turns with the great elements, as one relying on a teacher is called the cause of relying, because it can bear it. As a wall supports a painting, it is called the cause of establishing. Because it does not cut off, it is called the cause of sustaining. Because it increases, it is called the cause of nourishing. This shows that the great elements are, for the derived, causes of rising, changing, sustaining, abiding and growing. The various derived forms in relation to one another can have three causes, namely co-existent, homogeneous and maturation. Their efficient cause operates without distinction, and so is not counted as constant. The co-existent cause is the bodily and verbal karma that accompanies the mind, not other derived forms. The homogeneous cause is the earlier arising in relation to the later of the same kind. The maturation cause is that the bodily and verbal karma can bring the fruits of maturation such as the eye faculty. The derived for the great elements is only one cause, namely the maturation cause, because bodily and verbal karma can bring the great elements as fruit of maturation. Earlier it was generally said that all earlier minds and mental factors can be the immediately preceding condition for the later; it has not yet been definitely stated which mind immediately gives rise to how many minds, and from how many minds which mind arises. Now this should be definitely stated: roughly there are twelve minds. What are the twelve? The verse says:

欲界有四心，善惡覆無覆，

The desire realm has four minds, wholesome, evil, obstructed and unobstructed,

色無色除惡，無漏有二心。

The form and formless realms, apart from evil, and the undefiled has two minds.

論曰：且於欲界有四種心，謂善、不善、有覆無記、無覆無記。色無色界各有三心，謂除不善，餘如上說。如是十種說有漏心。若無漏心唯有二種，謂學、無學。合成十二。此十二心互相生者，頌曰：

The treatise says: In the desire realm there are four kinds of mind, namely wholesome, unwholesome, obstructed neutral and unobstructed neutral. The form and formless realms each have three minds, namely apart from the unwholesome, as above. These ten are said to be minds with outflows. The undefiled mind has only two kinds, namely the learner and the one beyond learning. Together they make twelve. How these twelve minds arise from one another is stated in the verse:

欲界善生九，此復從八生；

The desire-realm wholesome gives rise to nine, and arises again from eight;

染從十生四，餘從五生七；

The defiled gives rise to four from ten, the remaining arises from five and gives rise to seven;

色善生十一，此復從九生；

The form-realm wholesome gives rise to eleven, and arises again from nine;

有覆從八生，此復生於六；

The obstructed arises from eight, and gives rise to six;

無覆從三生，此復能生六；

The unobstructed arises from three, and can give rise to six;

無色善生九，此復從六生；

The formless wholesome gives rise to nine, and arises again from six;

有覆生從七，無覆如色辨；

The obstructed arises from seven, the unobstructed is distinguished like the form realm;

學從四生五，餘從五生四。

The learner arises from four and gives rise to five, the remaining arises from five and gives rise to four.

論曰：欲界善心無間生九，謂自界四；色界二心，於入定時及續生位，如其次第生善染心；無色界一，於續生位。欲善無間生彼染心，不生彼善以極遠故。無色於欲四遠故遠：一所依遠、二行相遠、三所緣遠、四對治遠。及學無學，謂入觀時。即此復從八無間起，謂自界四，色界二心，於出定時從彼善起。彼染汙定所逼惱時，從彼染心生於下善，為依下善防彼退故。及學無學，謂出觀時。染謂不善、有覆無記，二各從十無間而生，謂十二中除學無學。於續生位，三界諸心皆可無間生欲界染心故。即此無間能生四心，謂自界四，餘無生理。餘謂欲纏無覆無記，此心從五無間而生，謂自界四及色界善，欲界化心從彼生故。即此無間能生七心，謂自界四，及色界二，善與染汙，欲界化心還生彼善，於續生位生彼染心。並無色一，於續生位此無覆心能生彼染。色界善心無間生十一，謂除無色無覆無記心。即此復從九無間起，謂除欲界二染汙心，及除無色無覆無記。有覆從八無間而生，除欲二染及學無學。即此無間能生六心，謂自界三，欲善不善有覆無記。無覆從三無間而起，謂唯自界，餘無生理。即此無間能生六心，謂自界三，欲無色染。無色界善無間生九心，謂除欲善及欲色無覆。即此從六無間而生，謂自界三及色界善並學無學。有覆無間能生七心，謂自界三及色界善、欲色界染。即此亦從七無間起，謂除欲色染及學無學心。無覆如色說，從三無間生，謂自界三，餘皆非理。即此無間能生六心，謂自界三及欲色染。學心從四無間而生，謂即學心及三界善。即此無間能生五心，謂前四心及無學一。餘謂無學從五無間生，謂三界善及學無學二。即此無間能生四心，謂三界善及無學一。說十二心互相生已。云何分此為二十心？頌曰：

The treatise says: The wholesome mind of the desire realm immediately gives rise to nine: four of its own realm; two minds of the form realm, when entering concentration and in the stage of rebirth, producing a wholesome and a defiled mind respectively; and one of the formless realm, in the stage of rebirth. The desire-realm wholesome mind immediately gives rise to the defiled mind of the formless realm, but not to its wholesome mind, because it is too far. Formless realm is far from the four of the desire realm for four reasons: first, far in basis; second, far in mode of operation; third, far in object; fourth, far in antidote. And also the learner and one beyond learning, namely at the time of entering contemplation. This same mind again arises from eight immediately preceding: four of its own realm, two minds of the form realm, arising from the wholesome one of that realm when emerging from concentration. When a defiled concentration is troubled, from that defiled mind a lower wholesome mind arises, since one depends on the lower wholesome to guard against falling back. And the learner and one beyond learning, namely at the time of emerging from contemplation. The defiled, namely the unwholesome and obstructed neutral, each arise immediately from ten, namely the twelve apart from the learner and one beyond learning. In the stage of rebirth, minds of all three realms can immediately give rise to a defiled mind of the desire realm. This immediately gives rise to four minds, namely four of its own realm, and has no principle of giving rise to others. The "remaining" means the unobstructed neutral mind of the desire-realm sphere; this mind arises from five immediately: four of its own realm and the wholesome of the form realm, because the transformation mind of the desire realm arises from that. This immediately gives rise to seven minds, namely four of its own realm, two of the form realm, wholesome and defiled, as the transformation mind of the desire realm again gives rise to that wholesome mind, and in the stage of rebirth gives rise to that defiled mind; together with one of the formless realm, because in the stage of rebirth this unobstructed mind can give rise to that defiled one. The wholesome mind of the form realm immediately gives rise to eleven, namely apart from the unobstructed neutral mind of the formless realm. This again arises from nine immediately preceding, namely apart from the two defiled minds of the desire realm and the unobstructed neutral of the formless realm. The obstructed arises from eight immediately, apart from two defiled of the desire realm and the learner and one beyond learning. This immediately gives rise to six minds, namely three of its own realm, and the wholesome, unwholesome, obstructed neutral of the desire realm. The unobstructed arises from three immediately preceding, namely only its own realm, and there is no principle of arising from others. This immediately gives rise to six minds, namely three of its own realm and the defiled of the desire and formless realms. The wholesome of the formless realm immediately gives rise to nine minds, namely apart from the wholesome of the desire realm and the unobstructed of the desire and form realms. This arises from six immediately preceding, namely three of its own realm and the wholesome of the form realm together with the learner and one beyond learning. The obstructed immediately can give rise to seven minds, namely three of its own realm and the wholesome of the form realm and defiled of the desire and form realms. This also arises from seven immediately preceding, namely apart from the defiled of the desire and form realms and the learner and one beyond learning. The unobstructed is as stated for the form realm, arising from three immediately, namely three of its own realm, and others are not reasonable. This immediately can give rise to six minds, namely three of its own realm and the defiled of the desire and form realms. The learner mind arises from four immediately, namely the learner mind itself and the wholesome of the three realms. This immediately can give rise to five minds, namely the four earlier and one beyond learning. The "remaining", namely the one beyond learning, arises from five immediately: the wholesome of the three realms and the two, learner and beyond learning. This immediately can give rise to four minds, namely the wholesome of the three realms and one beyond learning. Having spoken of how the twelve minds give rise to one another, how are these divided into twenty minds? The verse says:

十二為二十，謂三界善心，

The twelve become twenty, namely the wholesome minds of the three realms,

分加行生得。欲無覆分四，

Divided into those from application and those from birth or attainment. The unobstructed of the desire realm is divided into four,

異熟威儀路，工巧處通果。

Maturation, deportment, craft, and transformation fruit.

色界除工巧，餘數如前說。

The form realm omits craft, and the other counts are as said before.

論曰：三界善心各分二種，謂加行得、生得別故。欲界無覆分為四心：一異熟生、二威儀路、三工巧處、四通果心。色無覆心分為三種，除工巧處，上界都無造作種種工巧事故。如是十二為二十心，謂善分六，無覆分八，無色界無威儀路等，餘數如上故成二十。威儀路等三無覆心，色香味觸為所緣境，工巧處等亦緣於聲，如是三心唯是意識。威儀路、工巧處加行亦通四識五識。有餘師說：有威儀路及工巧處所引意識，能具足緣十二處境。如是二十互相生者，且說欲界八種心中，加行善心無間生十，謂自界七，除通果心，及色界一加行善心，並學無學。即此復從八無間起，謂自界四，二善二染，及色界二，加行善心、有覆無記，並學無學。生得善心無間生九，謂自界七，除通果心，及色無色有覆無記。即此復從十一心起，謂自界七，除通果心，及色界二，加行善心、有覆無記，並學無學。二染汙心無間生七，謂自界七，除通果心。即此復從十四心起，謂自界七，除通果心，及色界四，除加行善與通果心，並無色三，除加行善。異熟威儀無間生八，謂自界六，除加行善與通果心，及色無色有覆無記。即此復從七無間起，謂自界七，除通果心。工巧處心無間生六，謂自界六，除加行善與通果心。即此復從七無間起，謂自界七，除通果心。從通果心無間生二，謂自界一即通果心，及色界一即加行善。即此亦從二無間起，謂即前說自色二心。次說色界六種心中，從加行善心無間生十二，謂自界六，及欲界三，加行、生得與通果心，並無色一加行善心，學無學心。即此復從十無間起，謂自界四，除威儀路與異熟生，及欲界二加行通果，並無色二，加行、有覆，學無學心。生得善心無間生八，謂自界五除通果心，及欲界二不善有覆，並無色一有覆無記。即此復從五無間起，謂自界五，除通果心。

The treatise says: The wholesome minds of the three realms are each divided into two kinds, namely those acquired through effort and those acquired by birth. The unobscured mind of the desire realm is divided into four minds: first, born of karmic maturation; second, the mind of deportment; third, the mind of crafts; and fourth, the mind of supernormal transformation. The unobscured mind of the form realm is divided into three kinds, omitting the mind of crafts, because the higher realms have no activity of making various crafts. Thus twelve become twenty minds: wholesome is divided into six and unobscured into eight, and the formless realm has no deportment and the like, with the remaining numbers as above, which makes twenty. The three unobscured minds of deportment and the like take form, smell, taste, and touch as their objects, and the mind of crafts and the like also takes sound; these three minds are only mind-consciousness. The mind of deportment and the mind of crafts, when produced through effort, also include the four or five consciousnesses. Other masters say: the mind-consciousness drawn forth by deportment and crafts can fully take as objects the twelve sense-bases. How these twenty arise from one another: first, among the eight minds of the desire realm, the wholesome mind of effort gives rise without interval to ten, namely seven of its own realm (omitting the mind of supernormal transformation), and one wholesome mind of effort in the form realm, together with the learner and the one beyond learning. This same mind in turn arises from eight, namely four of its own realm, two wholesome and two defiled, and two of the form realm, the wholesome mind of effort and the obscured indeterminate, together with the learner and the one beyond learning. The wholesome mind acquired by birth gives rise without interval to nine, namely seven of its own realm (omitting the mind of supernormal transformation), and the obscured indeterminate of the form and formless realms. This same mind in turn arises from eleven minds, namely seven of its own realm (omitting the mind of supernormal transformation), and two of the form realm, the wholesome mind of effort and the obscured indeterminate, together with the learner and the one beyond learning. The two defiled minds give rise without interval to seven, namely seven of their own realm (omitting the mind of supernormal transformation). These same minds in turn arise from fourteen minds, namely seven of their own realm (omitting the mind of supernormal transformation), four of the form realm (omitting the wholesome mind of effort and the mind of supernormal transformation), and three of the formless realm (omitting the wholesome mind of effort). The mind of deportment born of maturation gives rise without interval to eight, namely six of its own realm (omitting the wholesome mind of effort and the mind of supernormal transformation), and the obscured indeterminate of the form and formless realms. This same mind in turn arises from seven, namely seven of its own realm (omitting the mind of supernormal transformation). The mind of crafts gives rise without interval to six, namely six of its own realm (omitting the wholesome mind of effort and the mind of supernormal transformation). This same mind in turn arises from seven, namely seven of its own realm (omitting the mind of supernormal transformation). The mind of supernormal transformation gives rise without interval to two, namely one of its own realm, the mind of supernormal transformation, and one of the form realm, the wholesome mind of effort. This same mind also arises from two, namely the two minds of its own realm and the form realm just mentioned. Next, among the six kinds of mind of the form realm, the wholesome mind of effort gives rise without interval to twelve, namely six of its own realm, three of the desire realm (effort, birth-acquired, and supernormal transformation), one of the formless realm (the wholesome mind of effort), and the learner and the one beyond learning. This same mind in turn arises from ten, namely four of its own realm (omitting deportment and the maturation-born), two of the desire realm (effort and supernormal transformation), and two of the formless realm (effort and obscured), together with the learner and the one beyond learning. The wholesome mind acquired by birth gives rise without interval to eight, namely five of its own realm (omitting the mind of supernormal transformation), two of the desire realm (unwholesome and obscured), and one of the formless realm (obscured indeterminate). This same mind in turn arises from five, namely five of its own realm (omitting the mind of supernormal transformation).

有覆無記無間生九，謂自界五，除通果心，及欲界四，二善二染。即此復從十一心起，謂自界五，除通果心，及欲界三，生得善心、威儀、異熟，並無色三，除加行善。異熟威儀無間生七，謂自界四，除加行善與通果心，及欲界二，不善、有覆，並無色一，有覆無記。即此復從五無間起，謂自界五，除通果心。從通果心無間生二，謂自界二，加行通果。即此亦從二無間起，謂即前說自界二心。次說無色四種心中，加行善心無間生七，謂自界四，及色界一加行善心，並學無學。即此復從六無間起，謂自界三，唯除異熟，及色界一加行善心，並學無學。生得善心無間生七，謂自界四，及色界一有覆無記，並欲界二不善有覆。即此復從四無間起，謂自界四。有覆無記無間生八，謂自界四，及色界二加行有覆，並欲界二不善有覆。即此復從十無間起，謂自界四，及色界三生得、異熟與威儀路，並欲界三名如色說。異熟生心無間生六，謂自界三，除加行善，及色界一有覆無記，並欲界二不善有覆。即此復從四無間起，謂自界四。次說無漏二種心中，從有學心無間生六，謂通三界加行善心及欲生得，並學無學。即此復從四無間起，謂三加行及有學心。從無學心無間生五，謂前有學所生六中除有學一。即此復從五無間起，謂三加行及學無學。復有何緣？加行無間能生異熟、工巧、威儀，非彼無間生加行善，勢力劣故，非作功用所引發故。樂作功用引發工巧威儀轉故，不能順起加行善心，出心不由功用轉故，加行無間可能生彼。若爾，染汙無間不應生加行善，不相順故。雖爾，厭倦煩惱現行，為欲了知容起加行，欲界生得，以明利故。可有從彼學無學心，色界加行無間而起，非作功用所引發故，不能從此引生彼心。又欲生得以明利故，可從色染無間而生，色界生得不明利故，非無色染無間而起。

(The treatise continues:) The obscured indeterminate mind gives rise without interval to nine, namely five of its own realm (omitting the mind of supernormal transformation), and four of the desire realm, two wholesome and two defiled. This same mind in turn arises from eleven minds, namely five of its own realm (omitting the mind of supernormal transformation), three of the desire realm (the wholesome mind acquired by birth, deportment, and maturation), and three of the formless realm (omitting the wholesome mind of effort). The mind of deportment born of maturation gives rise without interval to seven, namely four of its own realm (omitting the wholesome mind of effort and the mind of supernormal transformation), two of the desire realm (unwholesome and obscured), and one of the formless realm (obscured indeterminate). This same mind in turn arises from five, namely five of its own realm (omitting the mind of supernormal transformation). The mind of supernormal transformation gives rise without interval to two, namely two of its own realm, effort and supernormal transformation. This same mind also arises from two, namely the two minds of its own realm just mentioned. Next, among the four kinds of mind in the formless realm, the wholesome mind of effort gives rise without interval to seven, namely four of its own realm, and one wholesome mind of effort in the form realm, together with the learner and the one beyond learning. This same mind in turn arises from six, namely three of its own realm (omitting only the maturation-born), one wholesome mind of effort in the form realm, and the learner and the one beyond learning. The wholesome mind acquired by birth gives rise without interval to seven, namely four of its own realm, one obscured indeterminate of the form realm, and two of the desire realm, unwholesome and obscured. This same mind in turn arises from four, namely four of its own realm. The obscured indeterminate mind gives rise without interval to eight, namely four of its own realm, two of the form realm (effort and obscured), and two of the desire realm, unwholesome and obscured. This same mind in turn arises from ten, namely four of its own realm, three of the form realm (birth-acquired, maturation-born, and deportment), and three of the desire realm, named as in the case of the form realm. The mind born of maturation gives rise without interval to six, namely three of its own realm (omitting the wholesome mind of effort), one obscured indeterminate of the form realm, and two of the desire realm, unwholesome and obscured. This same mind in turn arises from four, namely four of its own realm. Next, among the two kinds of undefiled mind, from the mind of the learner arise without interval six, namely the wholesome minds of effort of the three realms and the birth-acquired mind of the desire realm, together with the learner and the one beyond learning. This same mind in turn arises from four, namely the three minds of effort and the mind of the learner. From the mind of the one beyond learning arise without interval five, namely the six produced by the learner as above, omitting the learner. This same mind in turn arises from five, namely the three minds of effort and the learner and the one beyond learning. For what further reason can the mind of effort give rise without interval to maturation, crafts, and deportment, whereas these do not give rise without interval to the wholesome mind of effort? Because their strength is weak, and because they are not drawn forth by exertion. Crafts and deportment arise because one delights in exerting effort, so they cannot follow on with the wholesome mind of effort, since the mind that has come out of them does not operate by exertion; the mind of effort, by contrast, can give rise to them without interval. If so, defiled minds should not give rise without interval to the wholesome mind of effort, since they do not accord. Even so, when one becomes weary of the manifest afflictions and wishes to know them, the mind of effort may arise; and the birth-acquired desire-realm mind, because it is sharp, may give rise to the minds of the learner and the one beyond learning from it, arising without interval from the mind of effort in the form realm, since they are not drawn forth by exertion and so cannot be produced from this. Moreover, because the birth-acquired desire-realm mind is sharp, it can arise without interval from defilement of the form realm, but the birth-acquired form-realm mind is not sharp, so it does not arise without interval from defilement of the formless realm.

作意有三：一自相作意，謂如觀色變礙為相，乃至觀識了別為相，如是等觀相應作意。二共相作意，謂十六行相應作意。三勝解作意，謂不淨觀及四無量、有色解脫、勝處、遍處，如是等觀相應作意。如是三種作意無間聖道現前，聖道無間亦能具起三種作意。若作是說，便順此言，不淨觀俱行修念等覺分。有餘師說：唯從共相作意無間聖道現前，聖道無間通起三種修不淨觀調伏心已，方能引生共相作意，從此無間聖道現前。依此傳傳密意故說，不淨觀俱行修念等覺分。有餘復言：唯從共相作意無間聖道現前，聖道無間亦唯能起共相作意。若爾，有依未至定等三地證入正性離生，聖道無間可生欲界共相作意。若依第二第三第四靜慮證入正性離生，聖道無間起何作意？非起欲界共相作意，以極遠故。非於彼地已有曾得共相作意，異於曾得順決擇分。非諸聖者順決擇分可復現前，非得果已可重發生加行道故。若謂有別共相作意，順決擇分俱時已修，由繫屬彼是彼類故。如觀諸行皆是無常，觀一切法皆是非我涅槃寂靜，聖道無間引彼現前。毘婆沙師不許此義，違正理故。若依未至定得阿羅漢果後出觀心，或即彼地或是欲界。依無所有處得阿羅漢果後出觀心，或即彼地或是有頂。若依餘地得阿羅漢果後出觀心，唯自非餘地。於欲界中有三作意：一聞所成、二思所成、三生所得。色界亦有三種作意：一聞所成、二修所成、三生所得。無思所成，舉心思時即入定故。無色唯有二種作意：一修所成、二生所得。此中五種作意無間聖道現前，除生所得聖道，繫屬加行心故。聖道無間亦得發生，欲界生得以明利故。於前所說十二心中，何心現前幾心可得？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) There are three kinds of attention. First, attention to the specific characteristic, such as contemplating form as having resistance and change as its mark, up to contemplating consciousness as having discernment as its mark, attention associated with such contemplations. Second, attention to the common characteristic, namely attention associated with the sixteen aspects. Third, attention of resolve, namely attention associated with the contemplation of impurity, the four immeasurables, the liberations with form, the spheres of mastery, and the spheres of totality, and the like. Without interval after these three kinds of attention the noble path appears, and without interval after the noble path all three kinds of attention can also arise. If one speaks thus, one follows this statement: the factors of awakening such as mindfulness are cultivated together with the contemplation of impurity. Other masters say: the noble path appears without interval only after attention to the common characteristic, and without interval after the noble path all three can arise; only after the contemplation of impurity has subdued the mind can attention to the common characteristic be drawn forth, and from this the noble path appears without interval. Based on this transmitted hidden meaning it is said that the factors of awakening such as mindfulness are cultivated together with the contemplation of impurity. Still other masters say: the noble path appears without interval only after attention to the common characteristic, and without interval after the noble path only attention to the common characteristic can arise. If so, for those who enter the right and fixed state (samyaktva-niyama) relying on the three grounds such as the preliminary stage of concentration, desire-realm attention to the common characteristic can arise without interval after the noble path. If one enters the right and fixed state relying on the second, third, or fourth meditation, what attention arises without interval after the noble path? It is not desire-realm attention to the common characteristic, because that is extremely remote. It is not that on those planes one has previously obtained attention to the common characteristic, differing from what was previously obtained and accordant with the stage of decisive discernment. The stage of decisive discernment of the noble ones cannot appear again, and having attained the fruit one cannot again produce the path of effort. If one says that there is a distinct attention to the common characteristic, already cultivated simultaneously with the stage of decisive discernment, because it belongs to that and is of that kind, then, as in contemplating all conditioned things as impermanent and all dharmas as non-self and nirvana as peace, the noble path draws them forth without interval. The Vibhasha masters do not accept this meaning, because it contradicts correct reasoning. If one attains the fruit of an arhat relying on the preliminary stage of concentration, the mind after emerging from contemplation is either of that plane itself or of the desire realm. If one attains the fruit of an arhat relying on the sphere of nothing whatsoever, the mind after emerging is either of that plane itself or of the peak of existence. If one attains the fruit of an arhat relying on other planes, the mind after emerging is only of that plane and no other. In the desire realm there are three kinds of attention: first, born of hearing; second, born of reflection; and third, born of birth. The form realm also has three kinds of attention: first, born of hearing; second, born of cultivation; and third, born of birth. There is none born of reflection, because as soon as one raises the mind to reflect, one enters meditative absorption. The formless realm has only two kinds of attention: first, born of cultivation, and second, born of birth. Among these, the noble path appears without interval after five kinds of attention, excluding the birth-born, since the noble path belongs to the mind of effort; but without interval after the noble path the birth-born can also arise, because the birth-acquired desire-realm mind is sharp. Among the twelve minds spoken of earlier, when which mind is present, how many minds can be obtained? The verse says:

三界染心中，得六六二種，

In the defiled minds of the three realms one obtains six, six, and two kinds;

色善三學四，餘皆自可得。

in the wholesome form realm three, in the learner four, and the others obtain only their own.

論曰：欲界染心正現前位，十二心內容得六心，彼先不成今得成故。由疑續善及界退還，欲界善心爾時名得。由起惑退及界退還得欲二心，不善有覆及得色界一有覆心。由起惑退得無色界一有覆心，及得學心。故名得六。色界染心正現前位，十二心內亦得六心。由界退還得欲界一無覆無記及色界三。色界染心亦由退得，由起惑退得無色界一有覆心，及得學心。故名得六。無色染心正現前位，十二心內唯得二心，由起惑退得彼染心及得學心，故名得二。色界善心正現前位，十二心內容得三心，謂彼善心及欲色界無覆無記，由昇進故。若有學心正現前位，十二心內容得四心，謂有學心及欲色界無覆無記並無色善。由初證入正性離生，及由聖道離欲色染。餘謂前說染等心餘，不說彼心正現前位得心差別。應知彼心正現前位，唯自可得。有餘於此總說。頌曰：

The treatise says: When a defiled mind of the desire realm is present, among the twelve minds one can obtain six minds, since what was not previously possessed is now obtained. Through the continuation of the wholesome after doubt, and through falling back from the realm, the wholesome mind of the desire realm is then said to be obtained. Through falling back by arising of delusion, and through falling back from the realm, one obtains two minds of the desire realm, the unwholesome and the obscured, and obtains one obscured mind of the form realm. Through falling back by arising of delusion one obtains one obscured mind of the formless realm, and obtains the mind of the learner. So it is said that six are obtained. When a defiled mind of the form realm is present, among the twelve minds also six minds are obtained. Through falling back from the realm one obtains one unobscured indeterminate mind of the desire realm and three of the form realm. The defiled mind of the form realm is also obtained by falling back; through falling back by arising of delusion one obtains one obscured mind of the formless realm, and obtains the mind of the learner. So it is said that six are obtained. When a defiled mind of the formless realm is present, among the twelve minds only two minds are obtained: through falling back by arising of delusion one obtains that defiled mind and obtains the mind of the learner, so it is said that two are obtained. When a wholesome mind of the form realm is present, among the twelve minds three minds can be obtained, namely that wholesome mind and the unobscured indeterminate minds of the desire and form realms, because of advancement. When the mind of the learner is present, among the twelve minds four minds can be obtained, namely the mind of the learner, the unobscured indeterminate minds of the desire and form realms, and the wholesome mind of the formless realm. This is through first entering the right and fixed state, and through becoming free of defilement of the desire and form realms by the noble path. As for the other minds apart from the defiled and so on spoken of earlier, the differences of what is obtained when those minds are present are not stated. It should be understood that when those minds are present, only their own can be obtained. Another general statement on this follows. The verse says:

慧者說染心，現起時得九，

The wise say that when a defiled mind arises, nine are obtained;

善心中得六，無記唯無記。

in the wholesome mind six are obtained; the indeterminate obtains only the indeterminate.

於善心中應言得七，謂由正見續善根時，欲界善心起位名得。離欲界染究竟位中，頓得欲色無覆無記。得色無色三摩地時，彼二善心說名為得。初入離生位證阿羅漢時，學無學心說名為得。餘準前釋應知其相。為攝前義，復說頌言：

In the wholesome mind it should be said that seven are obtained: when the wholesome roots are continued through right view, the wholesome mind of the desire realm is said to be obtained when it arises. At the final stage of becoming free of defilement of the desire realm, the unobscured indeterminate minds of the desire and form realms are suddenly obtained. When one obtains the samadhi of the form and formless realms, those two wholesome minds are said to be obtained. When one first enters the state of detachment (rising from birth) and when one realizes arhatship, the minds of the learner and the one beyond learning are said to be obtained. The remaining characteristics should be understood by analogy with the explanation above. To sum up the preceding meaning, a verse is further spoken:

由託生入定，及離染退時，

At the time of taking birth, of entering absorption, and of becoming free of defilement or falling back,

續善位得心，非先所成故。

and at the stage of continuing the wholesome, minds are obtained that were not previously possessed.

尊者世親造

Composed by the Venerable Vasubandhu.

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang by imperial command.

分別世品第三之一

Chapter 3, Analysis of the World, Part 1.

已依三界分別心等。今次應說，三界是何？各於其中處別有幾？頌曰：

The mind and the rest have been analyzed according to the three realms. Now it should be explained: what are the three realms, and how many separate places are there in each? The verse says:

地獄傍生鬼，人及六慾天，

Hells, animals, hungry ghosts, humans, and the six heavens of desire,

名欲界二十，由地獄洲異。

are called the desire realm, twenty in number, differing by the hells and the continents.

此上十七處，名色界於中，

Above this are seventeen places, called the form realm, among which

三靜慮各三，第四靜慮八。

the first three meditations each have three, and the fourth meditation has eight.

無色界無處，由生有四種，

The formless realm has no place; it has four kinds by birth,

依同分及命，令心等相續。

in dependence on the same class and the life faculty, the mind and the rest continue.

論曰：地獄等四及六慾天並器世間，是名欲界。六慾天者，一、四大王眾天；二、三十三天；三、夜摩天；四、覩史多天；五、樂變化天；六、他化自在天。如是欲界處別有幾？地獄洲異，故成二十。八大地獄，名地獄異。一等活地獄、二黑繩地獄、三眾合地獄、四號叫地獄、五大叫地獄、六炎熱地獄、七大熱地獄、八無間地獄。言洲異者，謂四大洲：一南贍部洲、二東勝身洲、三西牛貨洲、四北俱盧洲。如是十二並六慾天、傍生、餓鬼處成二十。若有情界從自在天至無間獄，若器世界乃至風輪，皆欲界攝。此欲界上處有十七，謂三靜慮處各有三，第四靜慮處獨有八，器及有情總名色界。第一靜慮處有三者，一梵眾天、二梵輔天、三大梵天。第二靜慮處有三者，一少光天、二無量光天、三極光淨天。第三靜慮處有三者，一少淨天、二無量淨天、三遍淨天。第四靜慮處有八者，一無雲天、二福生天、三廣果天、四無煩天、五無熱天、六善現天、七善見天、八色究竟天。迦濕彌羅國諸大論師皆言：色界處但有十六。彼謂：即於梵輔天處有高臺閣，名大梵天，一主所居非有別地，如尊處座四眾圍繞。無色界中都無有處，以無色法無有方所，過去未來無表無色不住方所，理決然故。但異熟生，差別有四：一空無邊處、二識無邊處、三無所有處、四非想非非想處，如是四種名無色界。此四非由處有上下，但由生故勝劣有殊。復如何知彼無方處？謂於是處得彼定者，命終即於是處生故。復從彼沒生欲色時，即於是處中有起故。如有色界一切有情，要依色身心等相續。於無色界受生有情，以何為依心等相續？對法諸師說彼心等依眾同分及與命根而得相續。若爾，有色有情心等，何不但依此二相續？有色界生此二劣故。無色此二因何故強？彼界二從勝定生故，由彼等至能伏色想。若爾，於彼心等相續，但依勝定，何用別依？

The treatise says: The four beginning with hells, the six heavens of desire, and the world of vessels are called the desire realm. The six heavens of desire are: first, the Heaven of the Four Great Kings; second, the Heaven of the Thirty-three; third, the Yama Heaven; fourth, the Tushita Heaven; fifth, the Heaven of Delight in Transformation; and sixth, the Heaven of Mastery over Others' Transformations. How many separate places does the desire realm have? Differing by hells and continents, they make twenty. The eight great hells are the differences of hells: first, the Reviving Hell; second, the Black Rope Hell; third, the Crushing Hell; fourth, the Screaming Hell; fifth, the Great Screaming Hell; sixth, the Burning Hell; seventh, the Great Burning Hell; eighth, the Uninterrupted Hell (Avici). The differences of continents are the four great continents: first, Jambudvipa in the south; second, Purvavideha in the east; third, Aparagodaniya in the west; and fourth, Uttarakuru in the north. These twelve, together with the six heavens of desire, the animals, and the hungry ghosts, make twenty. The realm of sentient beings from the Heaven of Mastery down to the Uninterrupted Hell, and the world of vessels down to the wind circle, are all included in the desire realm. Above this desire realm there are seventeen places, namely three places each for the first three meditations and eight places for the fourth meditation alone; the vessels and sentient beings together are called the form realm. The first meditation has three places: first, the Heaven of the Brahma Assembly; second, the Heaven of the Brahma Ministers; and third, the Heaven of Great Brahma. The second meditation has three places: first, the Heaven of Lesser Light; second, the Heaven of Immeasurable Light; and third, the Heaven of Utmost Radiance. The third meditation has three places: first, the Heaven of Lesser Purity; second, the Heaven of Immeasurable Purity; and third, the Heaven of Universal Purity. The fourth meditation has eight places: first, the Heaven of No Clouds; second, the Heaven of Born of Merit; third, the Heaven of Great Fruit; fourth, the Heaven of No Affliction; fifth, the Heaven of No Heat; sixth, the Heaven of Excellent Appearance; seventh, the Heaven of Excellent Seeing; and eighth, the Heaven of Akanishtha (the Highest Form). The great masters of Kashmir all say that the places of the form realm are only sixteen. They say that in the place of the Brahma Ministers there is a high pavilion called the Heaven of Great Brahma, the residence of one sovereign and not a separate plane, like a venerable seat surrounded by the fourfold assembly. In the formless realm there are no places at all, because formless dharmas have no location; the past and future, unmanifested action, and the formless do not abide in any location, which is certain by reason. There are only four distinct kinds of maturation-born existence: first, the sphere of infinite space; second, the sphere of infinite consciousness; third, the sphere of nothing whatsoever; and fourth, the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception; these four kinds are called the formless realm. These four are not higher or lower by place, but differ in superiority and inferiority by birth. How then do we know that they have no location? Because when one attains that absorption in some place, at death one is born in that very place; and when, after passing away from that realm, one is born into the desire or form realm, the intermediate existence arises in that very place. In the form realm, all sentient beings necessarily continue the mind and the rest in dependence on the body of form. For beings born in the formless realm, in dependence on what does the mind and the rest continue? The Abhidharma masters say that the mind and the rest there continue by relying on the same class of beings and on the life faculty. If so, why do the minds and the rest of beings with form not continue merely in dependence on these two? Because in the form realm these two are weak. Why are these two strong in the formless realm? Because in that realm these two are born from superior absorption, and by that attainment one can subdue the perception of form. If so, in that realm, the continuity of the mind and the rest depends only on superior absorption; what use is there in depending on anything else?

又今應說，如有色界受生有情同分命根依色而轉，無色此二以何為依？此二更互相依而轉。有色此二何不相依？有色界生此二劣故。無色此二因何故強？彼界此二種，從勝定生故。前說彼定能伏色想，是則還同心相續難。或心心所唯互相依，故經部師說無色界心等相續無別有依。謂若有因未離色愛引起心等，所引心等與色俱生依色而轉。若因於色已得離愛，厭背色故，所引心等非色俱生不依色轉。何故名為欲等三界？能持自相故名為界。或種族義，如前已釋。欲所屬界說名欲界，色所屬界說名色界，略去中言故作是說，如胡椒飲如金剛環。於彼界中色非有故名為無色。所言色者，是變礙義，或示現義。彼體非色立無色名，非彼但用色無為體。無色所屬界，說名無色界，略去中言，喻如前說。又欲之界名為欲界，此界力能任持欲故。色無色界應知亦然。此中欲言為說何法？略說段食婬所引貪。如經頌言：

(The treatise continues:) Further, it should now be said: as in the form realm, for beings taking birth, the same class and the life faculty turn in dependence on form, on what do these two depend in the formless realm? These two turn in mutual dependence. Why do they not depend on each other in the form realm? Because in the form realm these two are weak. Why are these two strong in the formless realm? Because in that realm these two kinds are born from superior absorption. Since it was said earlier that that absorption can subdue the perception of form, this again returns to the difficulty about the continuity of mind. Or it may be that mind and mental factors depend only on one another; therefore the Sautrantika masters say that in the formless realm the continuity of the mind and the rest has no other dependence. That is, if the cause that brings forth the mind and the rest has not yet become free of love for form, the mind and the rest so brought forth arise together with form and turn in dependence on form. If the cause has become free of love for form, because one is averse to form, the mind and the rest so brought forth do not arise together with form and do not turn in dependence on form. Why are the three realms called desire and so on? Because they can sustain their own characteristics, they are called realms (dhatu). Or the meaning is lineage, as already explained. The realm belonging to desire is called the desire realm, the realm belonging to form is called the form realm, and this is said by omitting the middle word, like pepper drink or like a vajra ring. In that realm form is non-existent, so it is called formless. What is called form means resistance, or manifestation. Its substance is not form, so the name formless is established; it does not mean that it uses the unconditioned of form as its substance. The realm belonging to the formless is called the formless realm, the middle word being omitted, as in the example above. Furthermore, the realm of desire is called the desire realm, because this realm is able to sustain desire. The form and formless realms should be understood likewise. What dharma does the word desire speak of here? Briefly, it is the greed brought on by food as nourishment and by sexual intercourse. As the sutra verse says:

世諸妙境非真欲，真欲謂人分別貪，

The splendid objects of the world are not true desire; true desire is people's discriminating greed;

妙境如本住世間，智者於中已除欲。

the splendid objects remain as they are in the world, but the wise have already removed desire from them.

邪命外道便詰尊者舍利子言：

A heretic of the wrong livelihood then challenged the Venerable Shariputra, saying:

若世妙境非真欲，說欲是人分別貪，

If the splendid objects of the world are not true desire, and desire is people's discriminating greed,

比丘應名受欲人，起惡分別尋思故。

then monks should be called people who indulge in desire, because they give rise to evil discriminating thought.

時舍利子反質彼言：

At that time Shariputra turned the question back on him, saying:

若世妙境是真欲，說欲非人分別貪，

If the splendid objects of the world are true desire, and desire is not people's discriminating greed,

汝師應名受欲人，恆觀可意妙色故。

your teacher should be called a person who indulges in desire, because he constantly contemplates pleasing and splendid forms.

若法於彼三界現行，此法即說三界繫不？不爾。云何於中隨增三界貪者是三界繫？此中何法名三界貪？謂三界中各隨增者，今此所言同縛馬答。猶如有問縛馬者誰？答言馬主。即彼復問馬主是誰？答言縛者。如是二答皆不令解。今此所言不同彼答，謂於前說欲界諸處未離貪者，貪名欲貪，此所隨增名欲界繫。於前所說色無色中，隨其所應當知亦爾。或不定地貪名欲貪，此所隨增名欲界繫。諸靜慮地貪名色貪，此所隨增名色界繫。諸無色地貪名無色貪，此所隨增名為無色界繫。於欲化心上如何起欲貪？從他所聞，或自退失生愛味故。或觀化者自在勢力，於彼化心生貪愛故。若心能化香味二法，此能化心是欲界繫，色界心不能化作香味故。如是三界唯有一耶？三界無邊如虛空量，故雖無有始起有情，無量無邊佛出於世，一一化度無數有情令證無餘般涅槃界而不窮盡猶若虛空。世界當言云何安住？當言傍住，故契經言：譬如天雨滴如車軸，無間無斷從空下澍。如是東方無間無斷無量世界或壞或成，如於東方，南西北方亦復如是，不說上下。有說亦有上下二方，餘部經中說十方故。色究竟上復有欲界，於欲界下有色究竟。若有離一欲界貪時，諸欲界貪皆得滅離。離色無色應知亦爾。依初靜慮起通慧時，所發神通但能往至自所生界梵世非餘，所餘通慧應知亦爾。已說三界。五趣云何？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) If a dharma operates in those three realms, is that dharma said to belong to the three realms? No. How then is that which accompanies and increases greed of the three realms in them said to belong to the three realms? What dharma here is called greed of the three realms? It is what increases in each of the three realms; this statement here is not like the answer to the question about tying the horse. It is like when one asks who ties the horse and is answered, the horse's owner; and when one asks again who the horse's owner is, and is answered, the one who ties it. Such two answers do not make one understand. What is said here is not the same as that answer: namely, among the places of the desire realm spoken of earlier, for those not yet free of greed, the greed is called desire-greed, and what accompanies and increases it is called belonging to the desire realm. In the form and formless realms spoken of earlier, it should be understood likewise as appropriate. Or the greed of the indeterminate grounds is called desire-greed, and what accompanies and increases it is called belonging to the desire realm; the greed of the meditation grounds is called form-greed, and what accompanies and increases it is called belonging to the form realm; the greed of the formless grounds is called formless greed, and what accompanies and increases it is called belonging to the formless realm. How does desire-greed arise toward a transformed mind in the desire realm? Because one hears of it from others, or because one has oneself fallen away and developed love and relish for it. Or because one sees the sovereign power of what is transformed and develops greed and love toward that transformed mind. If a mind can transform smell and taste, this transforming mind belongs to the desire realm; a mind of the form realm cannot transform and make smell and taste. Is there only one such set of three realms? The three realms are boundless like the measure of space, so even though no sentient being has a beginning, immeasurable and boundless Buddhas appear in the world and each transforms and liberates countless sentient beings, leading them to realize the realm of nirvana without remainder, yet they do not exhaust them, just like space. How should it be said that the worlds are situated? It should be said they are situated sideways, so the sutra says: just as rain from the sky falls with drops like chariot axles, without gap and without break. Thus in the east, immeasurable worlds without gap or break are either being destroyed or formed; as in the east, so too in the south, west, and north; above and below are not mentioned. Some say there are also upper and lower directions, because other sutras speak of ten directions. Above Akanishtha there is again a desire realm, and below the desire realm there is Akanishtha. If one becomes free of greed in one desire realm, all desire-realm greed is extinguished and left behind. Becoming free of the form and formless realms should be understood likewise. When one produces supernormal wisdom relying on the first meditation, the supernormal powers produced can reach only the Brahma world of the realm in which one was born and no other; the other supernormal wisdoms should be understood likewise. The three realms have been explained. What of the five destinies? The verse says:

於中地獄等，自名說五趣，

Among them, the hells and so on are, by their own names, said to be the five destinies;

唯無覆無記，有情非中有。

they are only unobscured indeterminate, sentient beings, and not the intermediate existence.

論曰：於三界中說有五趣，即地獄等如自名說，謂前所說地獄、傍生、鬼及人、天是名五趣。唯於欲界有四趣全，三界各有天趣一分。為有三界非趣所攝，而於界中說有五趣？有，謂善染外器中有，雖是界性而非趣攝。五趣體唯無覆無記，若異此者趣應相雜，於一趣中具有五趣業煩惱故。五趣唯是有情數攝，體非中有。《施設足論》作如是說：四生攝五趣，非五攝四生。不攝者何？所謂中有。《法蘊足論》亦作是言：眼界云何？謂四大種所造淨色是眼，眼根、眼處、眼界。地獄、傍生、鬼、人、天趣，修成中有。契經亦簡中有異趣。是何契經？謂《七有經》。彼說七有，謂地獄有、傍生有、餓鬼有、天有、人有、業有、中有。彼經中說五趣及因並趣方便，故趣唯是無覆無記，其理極成。簡業有因，異諸趣故。迦濕彌羅國誦如是契經：尊者舍利子作是言：具壽！若有地獄諸漏現前故，造作增長順地獄受業，彼身語意曲穢濁故，於㮏落迦中受五蘊異熟，異熟起已名那落迦，除五蘊法，彼那落迦都不可得。故趣唯是無覆無記。若如是者，《品類足論》當云何通？彼說五趣一切隨眠所隨增故。彼說五趣續生心中容有五部一切煩惱趣及入心。總說為趣，無相違失。譬如村落及村落邊總名村落。有說：趣體亦通善染。然《七有經》簡業有者，非別說故，定非彼攝。如五濁中煩惱與見別說為濁，非別說故，彼見定非煩惱所攝。如是業有雖亦是趣，為顯趣因，是故別說。若爾，中有亦應是趣。不爾，趣義不相應故。趣謂所往，不可說言中有是所往，即死處生故。若爾，無色亦應非趣，即於死處而受生故。既爾，中有名中有，故不應名趣。二趣中故名為中有，此若趣攝非中間故，是則不應說名中有。然彼尊者舍利子言異熟起已名地獄者，說異熟起方名地獄，非說地獄唯是異熟。

The Treatise says: Among the three realms, five destinies are spoken of, namely hell and the rest, as their names say: the hell beings, animals, hungry ghosts, humans, and gods mentioned before are called the five destinies. Only the desire realm has all four lower destinies complete, while each of the three realms has a portion of the god destiny. Is there something in the three realms not included in a destiny, yet five destinies are spoken of in the realms? There is: namely the wholesome and defiled external vessel-world, which, though of the nature of a realm, is not included in a destiny. The essence of the five destinies is only the unobstructed and neutral; if it were otherwise, the destinies would be mixed together, since in a single destiny the karma and afflictions of all five destinies are present. The five destinies are included only among the number of sentient beings, and their essence is not the intermediate existence. The Prajnaptisastra says thus: The four modes of birth include the five destinies, but the five destinies do not include the four modes of birth. What is not included? Namely the intermediate existence. The Dharmaskandha-pada also says: What is the eye element? It is the clear form derived from the four great elements, which is the eye faculty, the eye base, and the eye element. The destinies of hell, animals, ghosts, humans, and gods are cultivated into the intermediate existence. The sutras also distinguish the intermediate existence from the destinies. Which sutra? Namely the Sutra of Seven Existences. It speaks of seven existences, namely hell existence, animal existence, hungry ghost existence, god existence, human existence, karmic existence, and intermediate existence. That sutra speaks of the five destinies, their causes, and the means to the destinies, and so it is fully established that the destinies are only unobstructed and neutral. The karmic existence is set apart as a cause, being different from the destinies. The people of Kashmir recite this sutra: Venerable Sariputra said thus: Venerable ones! When the outflows of hell are manifest, one performs and increases karma that leads to the experience of hell; because that body, speech, and mind are crooked, foul, and turbid, one receives the ripened result of the five aggregates in Naraka (the original uses a rare variant character for "Na"); once the ripened result has arisen it is called a Naraka being, but apart from the five aggregates, that Naraka being cannot be found at all. Therefore the destinies are only unobstructed and neutral. If so, how is the Prakaranapada to be reconciled? It says the five destinies are what all latent afflictions increasingly follow. There, in the rebirth-linking mind of the five destinies, all afflictions of the five groups may be present, and so both the destiny and the mind that enters it are spoken of together as the destiny, with no contradiction. It is like a village and the surroundings of a village both being called the village. Some say: The essence of the destinies also includes the wholesome and defiled. But the Sutra of Seven Existences sets apart karmic existence, which is not spoken of separately and so is surely not included in them. Just as among the five turbidities, afflictions and views are spoken of separately as turbidities, because they are not spoken of separately, those views are surely not included in afflictions. In the same way, although karmic existence is also a destiny, it is spoken of separately in order to show the cause of destinies. If so, the intermediate existence should also be a destiny. No, because the meaning of destiny does not correspond. A destiny is what one goes to, and one cannot say that the intermediate existence is what one goes to, since one is born in the very place of death. If so, the formless realm would also not be a destiny, since one is reborn in the very place of death. Since that is so, the intermediate existence is called intermediate, so it should not be called a destiny. Because it is between two destinies it is called intermediate; if this were included in a destiny, it would not be in between, and then it should not be called intermediate. As for what Venerable Sariputra said, that once the ripened result has arisen it is called hell, he means that only when the ripened result has arisen is it called hell, not that hell is only the ripened result.

然復說言，除五蘊法彼那落迦不可得者，為遮實有能往諸趣補特伽羅故作是說，非遮餘蘊故作是言。毘婆沙師說：趣唯是無覆無記。有說：一向是異熟生。有餘師言：亦通長養。即於三界及五趣中，如其次第識住有七。其七者何？頌曰：

(The Treatise continues:) Moreover, when he said that apart from the five aggregates that Naraka being cannot be found, he said so in order to deny a really existing person who goes into the various destinies, and did not say so to deny the other aggregates. The Vaibhashika masters say: The destinies are only unobstructed and neutral. Some say: They are always born of ripening. Some other masters say: They also include the nourished. Among the three realms and five destinies, there are seven abodes of consciousness, in order. What are the seven? The verse says:

身異及想異，身異同一想，

Different bodies and different perceptions, different bodies with one perception,

翻此身想一，並無色下三，

the reverse, one body and one perception, and the lower three formless states,

故識住有七，餘非有損壞。

so there are seven abodes of consciousness; the others are not, because of damage and destruction.

論曰：契經中說，有色有情身異想異，如人一分天，是第一識住。一分天者，謂欲界天及初靜慮，除劫初起。言身異者，謂彼色身種種顯形，狀貌異故。彼由身異，或有異身，故彼有情說名身異。言想異者，謂彼苦樂不苦不樂想差別故。彼由想異，或有異想，故彼有情說名想異。有色有情身異想一，如梵眾天謂劫初起，是第二識住。所以者何？以劫初起，彼諸梵眾起如是想：我等皆是大梵所生。大梵爾時亦起此想：是諸梵眾皆我所生。同想一因故名想一。大梵王身其量高廣，容貌威德言語光明衣冠等事，一一皆與梵眾不同，故名身異。經說：梵眾作是念言：我等曾見如是有情長壽久住，乃至起願：云何當令諸餘有情生我同分？於彼正起此心願時，我等便生彼同分內。梵眾何處曾見梵王？有餘師言：住極光淨，從彼天沒來生此故。云何今時不得第二靜慮，而能憶念彼地宿住事耶？若彼已得第二靜慮，云何緣大梵猶起戒禁取？有餘師說：住中有中，彼住中有中，無長時住義，以於受生無障礙故。如何梵眾可作念言：我等曾見如是有情長壽久住。是故梵眾即住自天，憶念此生前所更事，謂先見彼長壽久住，後重見時起如是念。有色有情身一想異，如極光淨天，是第三識住。此中舉後兼以攝初，應知具攝第二靜慮。若不爾者，彼少光天、無量光天何識住攝？彼天顯形狀貌不異，故名身一。樂非苦樂二想交參，故名想異。傳說彼天厭根本地喜根，已起近分地捨根現前；厭近分地捨根，已起根本地喜根現前。如富貴人厭欲樂已便受法樂，厭法樂已復受欲樂。豈不遍淨想亦應然？非遍淨天曾有厭樂，以樂寂靜曾無厭時；喜則不然，擾動心故。經部師說：有餘契經釋彼天中有想異義，謂極光淨有天新生，未善了知世間成壞。彼見下地火焰洞然，見已便生驚怖厭離：勿彼火焰燒盡梵宮令彼皆空上侵我處。

The Treatise says: The sutra says: Sentient beings with form, with different bodies and different perceptions, such as humans and a portion of the gods, are the first abode of consciousness. A portion of the gods means the gods of the desire realm and the first meditation, excluding the beginning of an eon. They are called different in body because their bodies of form show many kinds of appearance and their shapes and looks differ. Because of this difference of body, or because there are different bodies, those sentient beings are called different in body. They are called different in perception because their perceptions of pain, pleasure, and neither pain nor pleasure differ. Because of this difference of perception, or because there are different perceptions, those sentient beings are called different in perception. Sentient beings with form, with different bodies and one perception, such as the Brahma assembly gods at the beginning of an eon, are the second abode of consciousness. Why? Because at the beginning of an eon, those Brahma assembly gods think thus: We were all born of Great Brahma. Great Brahma at that time also thinks: These Brahma assembly gods were all born of me. Because they share one cause for the same thought, it is called one perception. The body of the Great Brahma King, in its height and breadth, appearance, majesty, speech, radiance, dress, and so on, is in every point different from that of the Brahma assembly, and so it is called different in body. The sutra says: The Brahma assembly think: We once saw such a sentient being long-lived and abiding long, and even made a vow: How might we cause other sentient beings to be born in our company? At the moment this thought and vow arose in them, we were then born into that company. Where did the Brahma assembly once see the Brahma King? Some other masters say: They lived in Abhasvara (Utmost Radiance), and having died there, came to be born here. How, then, can they now, without having attained the second meditation, recall the past lives of that plane? If they had already attained the second meditation, how could they still give rise to clinging to rules and rituals toward Great Brahma? Some other masters say: They were in the intermediate existence, and in the intermediate existence there is no meaning of long abiding, because there is no obstruction to taking rebirth. How, then, could the Brahma assembly think: We once saw such a sentient being long-lived and abiding long? Therefore the Brahma assembly, remaining in their own heaven, recall what they experienced before this life, namely that they first saw that being long-lived and abiding long, and when they saw him again they had this thought. Sentient beings with form, with one body and different perceptions, such as the Abhasvara gods, are the third abode of consciousness. Here, by citing the latter, the first is also included, and it should be known that the second meditation is fully included. If it were not so, in which abode of consciousness would the Lesser Light gods and the Limitless Light gods be included? Their appearance and shape do not differ, and so they are called one in body. Because perceptions of pleasure and of neither pain nor pleasure mingle, they are called different in perception. It is said that those gods, tiring of the joy faculty of the basic ground, give rise to the equanimity faculty of the proximate ground and it becomes present; tiring of the equanimity faculty of the proximate ground, they give rise to the joy faculty of the basic ground and it becomes present. It is like a rich and noble person who, having wearied of the pleasure of desire, takes pleasure in the Dharma, and having wearied of the pleasure of the Dharma, again takes pleasure in desire. Would it not be the same for perception in the Subhakrtsna (Universal Purity) heaven? The Universal Purity gods have never tired of pleasure, because they take delight in stillness and never tire of it; joy is not so, because it disturbs the mind. The Sautrantika masters say: Another sutra explains the meaning of different perceptions among those gods: namely that in the Abhasvara heaven some gods are newly born and do not yet well understand the formation and destruction of the world. They see the fire of the lower ground burning brightly, and seeing it, they are seized with terror and aversion: May that fire not burn up the Brahma palaces and empty them all, and rise up to invade our place.

彼極光淨有舊生天，已善了知世間成壞，便慰喻彼驚怖天言：淨仙淨仙。勿怖勿怖。昔彼火焰燒盡梵宮，令其皆空即於彼滅。彼於火焰有來不來想及怖不怖想故名想異，非由有樂非苦樂想有交參故得想異名。有色有情身一想一，如遍淨天，是第四識住。唯有樂想故名想一。初靜慮中由染汙想故言想一，第二靜慮由二善想故言想異，第三靜慮由異熟想故言想一，下三無色名別，如經即三識住是名為七。此中何法名為識住？謂彼所繫五蘊四蘊，如其所應是名識住。所餘何故非識住耶？於餘處皆有損壞識法故。餘處者何？謂諸惡處第四靜慮及與有頂。所以者何？由彼處有損壞識法，故非識住。何等名為損壞識法？謂諸惡處有重苦受能損於識，第四靜慮有無想定及無想事，有頂天中有滅盡定能壞於識，令相續斷故非識住。復說：若處餘處有情心樂來止，若至於此不更求出，說名識住。於諸惡處，二義俱無。第四靜慮心恆求出，謂諸異生求入無想，若諸聖者樂入淨居或無色處，若淨居天樂證寂滅，有頂昧劣故非識住。如是分別七識住已。因茲復說九有情居。其九者何？頌曰：

(The Treatise continues:) The Abhasvara gods who were born long ago and already understand well the formation and destruction of the world comfort the frightened gods, saying: Pure sages, pure sages, do not fear, do not fear. In the past that fire burned up the Brahma palaces and emptied them all, and ended just there. Because they differ in perceptions of whether the fire comes or does not come and whether to fear or not to fear, they are called different in perception, not because pleasure and neither-pain-nor-pleasure perceptions mingle in them. Sentient beings with form, with one body and one perception, such as the Universal Purity gods, are the fourth abode of consciousness. Because they have only the perception of pleasure, they are called one in perception. In the first meditation, because of defiled perception, it is said to be one in perception; in the second meditation, because of two wholesome perceptions, it is said to be different in perception; in the third meditation, because of the perception of ripening, it is said to be one in perception; the lower three formless states are named separately, as in the sutra, and these three abodes of consciousness together make seven. Here, what dharma is called an abode of consciousness? It is the five aggregates or four aggregates bound to those places, as is appropriate, and these are called abodes of consciousness. Why are the other places not abodes of consciousness? Because in the other places there are dharmas that damage and destroy consciousness. What are the other places? Namely the evil destinies, the fourth meditation, and the Peak of Existence. Why? Because in those places there are dharmas that damage consciousness, they are not abodes of consciousness. What are the dharmas that damage consciousness? In the evil destinies there is heavy painful feeling that can injure consciousness; in the fourth meditation there is the attainment of non-perception and the matter of non-perceivers; in the Peak of Existence there is the attainment of cessation, which can destroy consciousness and cut the continuum; and so they are not abodes of consciousness. It is also said: A place where sentient beings in other places happily come to dwell in mind, and where, having arrived, they do not seek to leave again, is called an abode of consciousness. In the evil destinies, both meanings are absent. In the fourth meditation the mind constantly seeks to leave: ordinary beings seek to enter non-perception, the noble ones delight to enter the Pure Abodes or the formless realms, the gods of the Pure Abodes delight to realize quiescence, and the Peak of Existence is dim and weak, and so they are not abodes of consciousness. Having thus distinguished the seven abodes of consciousness, we next speak of the nine dwellings of sentient beings. What are the nine? The verse says:

應知兼有頂，及無想有情，

It should be known to add the Peak of Existence and the non-percipient beings,

是九有情居，餘非不樂住。

which are the nine dwellings of sentient beings; the others are not places where they willingly dwell.

論曰：前七識住及第一有、無想有情，是名為九，諸有情類唯於此九欣樂住故立有情居。餘處皆非，不樂住故。言餘處者，謂諸惡處，非有情類自樂居中，惡業羅剎逼之令住故。彼如牢獄不立有情居。第四靜慮除無想天，餘非有情居，如識住中釋。前所引經說七識住，復有餘經說四識住。其四者何？頌曰：

The Treatise says: The seven abodes of consciousness, the first existence, and the non-percipient beings are called the nine; because the various kinds of sentient beings delight to dwell only in these nine, they are established as dwellings of sentient beings. The other places are not, because they do not delight to dwell there. As for the other places, namely the evil destinies, sentient beings do not live there by their own pleasure; evil karma and rakshasas press them to remain. They are like prisons and are not established as dwellings of sentient beings. In the fourth meditation, apart from the non-percipient heaven, the rest are not dwellings of sentient beings, as explained under the abodes of consciousness. The sutra cited above speaks of seven abodes of consciousness, and other sutras speak of four abodes of consciousness. What are the four? The verse says:

四識住當知，四蘊唯自地，

The four abodes of consciousness should be known as the four aggregates, only of their own plane,

說獨識非住，有漏四句攝。

and consciousness alone is said not to be an abode; the defiled are included in four alternatives.

論曰：如契經言：識隨色住，識隨受住，識隨想住，識隨行住，是名四種。如是四種其體云何？謂隨次第有漏四蘊。又此唯在自地非餘，識所依著，名識住故。非於異地色等蘊中識隨愛力依著於彼。如何不說識為識住？由離能住立所住故。非能住識可名所住，如非即王可名王座。或若有法識所乘御，如人船理說名識住。非識即能乘御自體，是故不說識為識住。毘婆沙師所說如是。若爾，何故餘契經言：於識食中有喜有染，有喜染故識住其中、識所乘御。又如何言前七識住五蘊為體？雖有是說，而於生處所攝蘊中不別分析，總生喜染故。識轉時亦名識住，非獨說識。然色等蘊一一能生種種喜染令識依著，獨識不然，故言非住。是故於此四識住中識非識住，於餘可說。又佛意說，此四識住猶如良田，總說一切有取諸識猶如種子，不可種子立為良田。仰測世尊教意如是。又法與識可俱時生，為識良田可立識住。識蘊不爾，故非識住。如是所說七種四種，識住雖殊而皆有漏。為七攝四、四攝七耶？非遍相攝。可為四句。謂審觀察應知二門體互寬陿得成四句，或有七攝非四攝等。第一句者，謂七中識。第二句者，謂諸惡處、第四靜慮及有頂中，除識餘蘊。第三句者，七中四蘊。第四句者，謂除前相。於前所說諸界趣中，應知其生略有四種。何等為四？何處有何？頌曰：

The Treatise says: As the sutra says: Consciousness abides following form, consciousness abides following feeling, consciousness abides following perception, consciousness abides following formations; these are called the four kinds. What is the essence of these four kinds? Namely the four defiled aggregates in order. Moreover, these are only in their own plane and not in others, because consciousness clings to them as its support, and so they are called abodes of consciousness. In the aggregates of form and so on in other planes, consciousness does not cling to them through the force of craving. Why is consciousness itself not called an abode of consciousness? Because the abode must be established apart from what abides. The abiding consciousness cannot be called the abode, just as a king cannot be called the king's seat. Or, if a dharma is something consciousness mounts and drives, as a person does a boat, it is called an abode of consciousness. Consciousness itself is not its own mount and driver, and so consciousness is not called an abode of consciousness. This is what the Vaibhashika masters say. If so, why do other sutras say: In the nutriment of consciousness there is delight and there is defilement, and because there is delight and defilement, consciousness abides in it and is mounted and driven by it? And why, moreover, are the five aggregates said to be the essence of the previous seven abodes of consciousness? Although this is said, in the aggregates included in the place of birth they are not analyzed separately, because they generally give rise to delight and defilement. At the time of its turning, consciousness is also called an abode of consciousness, but it is not that consciousness alone is spoken of. Form and the other aggregates each can give rise to various delights and defilements and make consciousness cling to them, but consciousness alone does not do so, and so it is said not to be an abode. Therefore among these four abodes of consciousness, consciousness is not an abode of consciousness, but it can be said of the others. Further, the Buddha's intention is that these four abodes of consciousness are like fertile fields, and all consciousnesses that grasp are like seeds; seeds cannot be established as fertile fields. This is what we infer of the World-Honored One's teaching. Moreover, dharmas and consciousness can arise at the same time, so one can establish a fertile field for consciousness as an abode of consciousness; the aggregate of consciousness is not like this, and so it is not an abode of consciousness. The seven kinds and four kinds spoken of thus, though the abodes of consciousness differ, are all defiled. Do the seven include the four, or the four include the seven? They do not include each other completely. There can be four alternatives. That is, by carefully examining the two gateways, one should know that their essences are mutually wide and narrow and so make four alternatives: some are included in the seven but not in the four, and so on. The first alternative is the consciousness within the seven. The second is, in the evil destinies, the fourth meditation, and the Peak of Existence, the aggregates other than consciousness. The third is the four aggregates within the seven. The fourth is what is other than the foregoing. Among the realms and destinies described above, it should be known that there are briefly four kinds of birth. What are the four? Where is each found? The verse says:

於中有四生，有情謂卵等，

Among them there are four births, for sentient beings, namely egg-born and so on,

人傍生具四，地獄及諸天，

humans and animals have all four; hell beings and gods,

中有唯化生，鬼通胎化二。

and the intermediate existence, are only spontaneously born; ghosts include womb-born and spontaneously born.

論曰：謂有情類卵生、胎生、濕生、化生，是名為四。生謂生類。諸有情中雖餘類雜，而生類等。云何卵生？謂有情類生從卵㲉是名卵生，如鵝孔雀鸚鵡鴈等。云何胎生？謂有情類生從胎藏是名胎生，如象馬牛豬羊驢等。云何濕生？謂有情類生從濕氣是名濕生，如蟲飛蛾蚊蚰蜒等。云何化生？謂有情類生無所託是名化生，如那落迦、天、中有等，具根無缺支分頓生，無而欻有故名為化。人傍生趣各具四種。人卵生者，謂如世羅鄔波世羅生從鶴卵，鹿母所生三十二子，般遮羅王五百子等。人胎生者，如今世人。人濕生者，如曼馱多遮盧鄔波遮盧，鴿鬘菴羅衛等。人化生者，唯劫初人。傍生三種，共所現見。化生如龍揭路荼等。一切地獄、諸天、中有，皆唯化生。鬼趣唯通胎化二種。鬼胎生者，如餓鬼女白目連云：

The Treatise says: Sentient beings that are egg-born, womb-born, moisture-born, and spontaneously born are called the four. Birth means kind of birth. Among sentient beings, though other kinds are mixed, the kinds of birth are equal. What is egg-born? Sentient beings born from an eggshell are called egg-born, such as geese, peacocks, parrots, and wild geese. What is womb-born? Sentient beings born from a womb are called womb-born, such as elephants, horses, cattle, pigs, sheep, and donkeys. What is moisture-born? Sentient beings born from damp vapor are called moisture-born, such as insects, flying moths, mosquitoes, and centipedes. What is spontaneously born? Sentient beings born without any support are called spontaneously born, such as Naraka beings, gods, and intermediate beings, who are born at once with their faculties complete and their limbs without defect; because they suddenly come to be from nothing, it is called spontaneous. Humans and animals each have all four kinds. Egg-born humans are, for example, Lorupasera in the world, who was born from a crane's egg, the thirty-two sons born of the deer-mother, the five hundred sons of the King of Pancala, and so on. Womb-born humans are like the people of the world today. Moisture-born humans are such as Mandhata, Carupacaru, Kapotamala, Amra-palika, and so on. Spontaneously born humans are only the people at the beginning of an eon. Animals of three kinds are commonly seen; spontaneously born ones are like dragons and garudas. All hell beings, gods, and intermediate beings are only spontaneously born. The ghost destiny includes only two kinds, womb-born and spontaneously born. As for womb-born ghosts, a hungry ghost woman said to Maudgalyayana:

我夜生五子，隨生皆自食，

At night I give birth to five sons, and as each is born I eat him myself;

晝生五亦然，雖盡而無飽。

by day I give birth to five as well, and though I finish them, I am never full.

一切生中何生最勝？應言最勝唯是化生。若爾，何緣後身菩薩得生自在而受胎生？現受胎生有大利故，謂為引導諸大釋種親屬相因令入正法。又引餘類令知菩薩是輪王種生敬慕心，因得捨邪趣於正法。又令所化生增上心：彼既是人，能成大義；我曹亦爾，何為不能因發正勤專修正法？又若不爾，族姓難知，恐疑幻化為天為鬼。如外道論矯設謗言：過百劫後當有大幻出現於世噉食世間。故受胎生息諸疑謗。有餘師說：為留身界故受胎生，令無量人及諸異類一興供養千返生天及證解脫。若受化生無外種故，身才殞逝無復遺形，如滅燈光即無所見。若人信佛有持願通能久留身，此不成釋因論生論。若化生身如滅燈光死無遺者，何故契經說化生揭路荼取化生龍為充所食？以不知故為食取龍，不說充飢。斯有何失？或龍未死暫得充飢，死已還飢。暫食何咎！於四生內何者最多？唯化生。何以故？三趣少分及二趣全、一切中有皆化生故。此中何法說名中有？何緣中有非即名生？頌曰：

(The Treatise continues:) Among all kinds of birth, which is the most excellent? It should be said that the most excellent is only spontaneous birth. If so, why did the Bodhisattva of his last body, who had mastery over birth, take birth in the womb? Because taking womb-birth presented great benefits: namely, in order to guide the great Shakya relatives, who were connected to him by kinship, to enter the true Dharma; also to lead other kinds of beings to know that the Bodhisattva was born of a wheel-turning king's lineage and to give rise to reverence, so that through this they would abandon wrong paths and turn to the true Dharma; also to make those to be taught give rise to superior resolve: He was a human and could accomplish great things; we too are the same, why can we not therefore arouse diligence and devote ourselves to the true Dharma? Moreover, if it were not so, his lineage would be hard to know, and people might suspect that he was a magical creation, a god or a ghost. As the non-Buddhist treatises falsely slander, saying: After a hundred eons a great illusionist will appear in the world and devour the world. Therefore he took womb-birth to put an end to doubts and slanders. Some other masters say: He took womb-birth in order to leave his bodily relics, so that countless people and beings of other kinds, by making offerings once, would be reborn in heaven a thousand times and attain liberation. If he had taken spontaneous birth, since there is no external seed, his body would vanish at death leaving no form behind, like the light of an extinguished lamp, which can no longer be seen. If a person has faith in the Buddha and holds a vow with spiritual power to remain long, this does not make a valid explanation, since it concerns the cause and the birth. If the spontaneously born body, like the light of an extinguished lamp, leaves nothing behind at death, why does the sutra say that spontaneously born garudas take spontaneously born dragons as food? Because they do not know, they take dragons as food; it is not said that this fills their hunger. What fault is there in this? Or the dragon, not yet dead, can fill the hunger for a time, and when it dies, hunger returns. What fault is there in eating for a while? Among the four births, which is the most numerous? Only spontaneous birth. Why? Because a portion of three destinies, two destinies entire, and all intermediate beings are spontaneously born. Here, what dharma is called the intermediate existence? Why is the intermediate existence not itself called birth? The verse says:

死生二有中，五蘊名中有，

Between the existence of death and the existence of birth, the five aggregates are called the intermediate existence,

未至應至處，故中有非生。

since they have not yet reached the place they are to reach, the intermediate existence is not birth.

論曰：於死有後、在生有前，即彼中間有自體起，為至生處故起此身，二趣中間故名中有。此身已起，何不名生？生謂當來所應至處，依所至義建立生名。此中有身其體雖起而未至彼，故不名生。何謂當來所應至處？所引異熟究竟分明，是謂當來所應至處。有餘部說：從死至生處容間絕，故無中有。此不應許。所以者何？依理教故。理教者何？頌曰：

The Treatise says: After the existence at death and before the existence at birth, in between the two, a self-nature arises; because it arises in order to reach the place of birth, and it is between two destinies, it is called the intermediate existence. This body has already arisen, so why is it not called birth? Birth means the place that will in future be reached, and the name birth is established according to the meaning of arrival. Although the essence of this intermediate body has arisen, it has not yet arrived there, so it is not called birth. What is meant by the place to be reached in future? When the ripened result that has been drawn forth becomes finally distinct, this is called the place to be reached in future. Some other schools say: From death to the place of birth there may be an interruption, and so there is no intermediate existence. This should not be admitted. Why? Because of reasoning and scripture. What are the reasoning and scripture? The verse says:

如穀等相續，處無間續生，

As with grain and so on in continuity, the place continues without interval in birth;

像實有不成，不等故非譬。

the really existing image is not established, and since it is not equal it is no analogy.

一處無二並，非相續二生，

In one place there are not two together, and it is not that two births are in continuity;

說有健達縛，及五七經故。

because the gandharva is spoken of, and because of the five-seven sutras.

論曰：且依正理中有非無。現見世間相續轉法，要處無間剎那續生。且如世間穀等相續，有情相續理亦應然，剎那續生處必無間。豈不現見有法續生，而於其中處亦有間？如依鏡等從質像生。如是有情死有生有，處雖有間何妨續生？實有諸像理不成故，又非等故為喻不成。謂別色生說名為像，其體實有理所不成。設成非等，故不成喻。言像不成故非喻者，以一處所無二並故。謂於一處鏡色及像並見現前，二色不應同處並有，依異大故。又陿水上兩岸色形，同處一時俱現二像。居兩岸者互見分明，曾無一處並見二色，不應謂此二色俱生。又影與光未嘗同處，然曾見鏡懸置影中，光像顯然現於鏡面，不應於此謂二並生。或言一處無二並者，鏡面月像謂之為二，近遠別見如觀井水，若有並生如何別見？故知諸像於理實無。然諸因緣和合勢力令如是見，以諸法性功能差別難可思議。已辯不成所以非喻。言非等故亦非喻者，以質與像非相續故。謂質與像非一相續，唯依鏡等有像現故，像與本質俱時有故。如死生有是一相續前後無間餘處續生，質像相望無此相續，以不相似故不成喻。又所現像由二生故，謂二緣故諸像得生：一者本質、二者鏡等。二中勝者像依彼生，生有無容由二緣起，唯有死有無別勝依，故所引喻非等於法。亦不可說以外非情精血等緣為勝依性，由化生者空中欻生，於中計何為勝依性？已依正理對破彼宗從死至生處容間絕，是故中有決定非無。次依聖教證有中有，謂契經言：有有七種，即五趣有、業有、中有。若此契經彼部不誦，豈亦不誦《健達縛經》？如契經言：入母胎者要由三事俱現在前，一者母身是時調適、二者父母交愛和合、三健達縛正現在前。除中有身，何健達縛？前蘊已壞，何現在前？若此契經彼亦不誦，復云何釋《掌馬族經》？如彼經言：汝今知不？

The Treatise says: First, by correct reasoning, the intermediate existence is not non-existent. We see in the world that for dharmas that proceed in continuity, the place must continue without interval from moment to moment. Just as the continuity of grain and so on in the world, so the continuity of sentient beings should reasonably be the same: the place must be without interval as moments continue. Do we not see that dharmas arise in continuity and yet the place between them has a gap? For example, an image arises from a form in a mirror and so on. Likewise for sentient beings, from the existence of death to the existence of birth, though there is a gap in place, what harm is there to their continuing to arise? Because the reality of various images cannot be established, and because it is not equal, it fails as an analogy. Namely, the form that arises separately and is called an image has a real essence that cannot be established by reasoning. Even if established, it is not equal, and so it fails as an analogy. It is said that images are not established and so are no analogy, because in one place there cannot be two together. That is, in one place both the mirror's form and the image are seen present, but two forms should not coexist in one place, since they depend on different great elements. Again, on a narrow stretch of water, the forms of the two banks both appear as images at the same moment in the same place. Those on the two banks see each other clearly, but never in one place see two forms together, and it should not be said that these two forms are born together. Furthermore, shadow and light never occupy the same place, yet we have seen a mirror hung in the shadow, with the light and image clearly appearing on the mirror's surface; here it should not be said that the two are born together. Or, regarding the saying that there are not two in one place: the moon's image on a mirror's surface is called two, and it is seen as near and far separately, like looking into a well; if they were born together, how could they be seen separately? Therefore know that images in reason are in truth non-existent. Rather, the force of the combination of various causes and conditions makes it seen thus, because the capacities and differences of the nature of dharmas are hard to conceive. Having explained that it is not established and so no analogy: as to saying it is not equal and so also not an analogy, because the original form and the image are not a continuity. That is, the original form and the image are not one continuity, since the image appears only depending on the mirror and so on, and because the image and the original form exist at the same time. The existence of death and the existence of birth are one continuity, before and after without interval, with the continuation taking place elsewhere; the original form and the image have no such continuity in relation to each other, and since they are not alike, the analogy fails. Moreover, the image that appears arises from two, namely because images arise through two conditions: one, the original form, and two, the mirror and so on. Of the two, the image depends on the superior one for arising, but for the existence of birth, which arises from two conditions, only the existence of death is there and there is no other superior support, and so the cited analogy is not equal to the thing it illustrates. Nor can one say that external non-sentient things such as semen and blood are the superior support, because for spontaneous birth, which suddenly arises in space, what could be reckoned as the superior support in it? Having refuted by correct reasoning the position that between death and the place of birth there may be an interruption, the intermediate existence is therefore definitely not non-existent. Next, from the holy teaching we establish the existence of the intermediate existence. The sutra says: There are seven existences, namely the five destinies, karmic existence, and intermediate existence. If that school does not recite this sutra, does it also not recite the Gandharva Sutra? As the sutra says: Entering a mother's womb requires three things to be present together: first, the mother's body is in good condition at that time; second, father and mother unite in love; third, the gandharva is actually present. Apart from the intermediate body, what gandharva could there be? The previous aggregates have already been destroyed, so what would be present? If that school also does not recite this sutra, then how do they explain the Sutra of the Horse-Keepers' Clan? As that sutra says: Do you now know?

此健達縛正現前者，為婆羅門、為剎帝利、為是吠舍、為戍達羅？為東方來、為南西北？前蘊已壞不可言來，此所言來固唯中有。若復不誦如是契經，《五不還經》當云何釋？如契經說：有五不還，一者中般、二者生般、三無行般、四有行般、五者上流。中有若無，何名中般？有餘師執：有天名中，住彼般涅槃，是故名中般。是則應許有生等天；既不許然，故執非善。又經說有七善士趣，謂於前五，中般分三，由處及時近中遠故。譬如札火小星迸時，才起近即滅，初善士亦爾。譬如鐵火小星迸時，起至中乃滅，二善士亦爾。譬如鐵火大星迸時，遠未墮而滅，三善士亦爾。非彼所執別有中天，有此時處三品差別，故彼所執定非應理。有餘復說：或壽量中間、或近天中間，斷餘煩惱成阿羅漢，是名中般。由至界位或想或尋而般涅槃，故有三品：或取色界眾同分已即般涅槃，是名第一。從是次後受天樂已方般涅槃，是名第二。復從此後入天法會乃般涅槃，是名第三。入法會已復經多時方般涅槃，是名生般。或減多壽方般涅槃非創生時，故名生般。如是所說與火星喻皆不相應。所以者何？以彼處行無差別故。又無色界亦應說有中般涅槃，由彼亦有壽量中間般涅槃故。然不說彼有中般者，如嗢拕南伽他中說：

(The treatise continues:) When this gandharva is actually present, is it a Brahmin, a kshatriya, a vaishya, or a shudra? Does it come from the east, or from the south, west, or north? Since the former aggregates have already perished it cannot be said to come from anywhere; what is said here to come is surely the intermediate existence only. If one does not recite such a sutra, how should the Sutra of the Five Non-Returners be explained? As the sutra says: there are five non-returners: first, one who attains nirvana in the intermediate state; second, one who attains it upon birth; third, one who attains it without exertion; fourth, one who attains it with exertion; and fifth, one who goes upstream. If there were no intermediate existence, why would the first be called one who attains nirvana in the intermediate state? Some other masters hold: there is a heaven called Intermediate, and one who dwells there and attains nirvana is therefore called one who attains nirvana in the intermediate state. In that case it should be admitted that there are also heavens of birth and so on; since this is not admitted, that view is not sound. Again the sutra speaks of seven good persons' destinies, namely, among the five before, the one who attains nirvana in the intermediate state is divided into three, by the nearness, middle, and distance of place and time. It is like a spark flying from a piece of hot kindling: it dies out as soon as it rises, near the source; the first good person is likewise. It is like a small spark flying from hot iron: it rises to the middle and then dies out; the second good person is likewise. It is like a large spark flying from hot iron: it dies out far away before it falls; the third good person is likewise. It is not that there is a separate intermediate heaven as they hold, with these three grades of time and place; so what they hold is surely unreasonable. Other masters further say: either in the middle of the lifespan or near a heaven's middle, one severs the other afflictions and becomes an arhat, which is called attaining nirvana in the intermediate state. Upon reaching the realm and the stage, through perception or reflection one attains nirvana, so there are three grades: either one takes on the common class of the form realm and then at once attains nirvana, which is called the first; or, after enjoying heavenly pleasure after that, one then attains nirvana, which is called the second; or, after this, one enters a heavenly assembly of the Dharma and then attains nirvana, which is called the third. One who, after entering the Dharma assembly, passes through much time before attaining nirvana is called one who attains it upon birth; or, having shortened much of the lifespan, one attains nirvana not at the start of birth, and is therefore called one who attains it upon birth. What is said thus does not correspond to the analogy of the sparks. Why? Because there is no difference in the practice at those places. Furthermore, in the formless realm too one should speak of attaining nirvana in the intermediate state, since there also one attains nirvana in the middle of the lifespan. Yet it is not said that they have this, as the Udana verse says:

總集眾聖賢，四靜慮各十，

All the assembled noble worthies: ten in each of the four meditations,

三無色各七，唯六謂非想。

seven in each of the three formless states, and only six in neither perception nor non-perception.

故彼所執皆是虛妄。若復不誦如是等經，無上法王久已滅度，諸大法將亦般涅槃，聖教支離已成多部，其於文義異執交馳，取捨任情於今轉盛。哀哉汝等固守愚迷違理拒教，可傷之甚。諸有馮前理教為量，中有於彼實有極成。若爾，云何契經中說造極惡業度使魔羅，現身顛墜無間地獄。此經意說，彼命未捨，地獄猛焰已燒其身，因此命終受彼中有，乘茲乃墮無間地獄。由彼惡業勢力增強，不待命終苦相已至，先受現受、後受生受。何故經說：一類有情於五無間業作及增長已，無間必定生那落迦？此經意遮彼往異趣，及顯彼業定順生受。若但執文，應要具五方生地獄，非隨闕一或餘業因，便成大過。又言：無間生那落迦，應作即生不待身壞。或誰不許中有是生？那落迦名亦通中有，死有無間中有起時亦得名生，生方便故。經言無間生那落迦，不言爾時即是生有。若爾，經頌復云何通？如經頌言：

(The treatise continues:) Therefore all that they hold is false. If one does not recite sutras such as these, the unsurpassed Dharma King has long since passed into nirvana, the great Dharma generals have also entered nirvana, the holy teaching has been fragmented into many schools, and in regard to text and meaning divergent views race about, with acceptance and rejection following personal feeling, now more flourishing than ever. Alas, you cling to foolish delusion, going against reason and rejecting the teaching; how deeply to be lamented. For those who take the preceding reasoning and scripture as the standard, the intermediate existence is truly established. If so, how does the sutra say that one who has committed extremely evil karma crosses over by the messenger Mara and falls alive into the Uninterrupted Hell? The meaning of this sutra is that before that person's life is given up, the fierce flames of the hell have already burned his body, and because of this he dies and receives that intermediate existence, riding on which he then falls into the Uninterrupted Hell. Because the power of that evil karma is so strong, the signs of suffering arrive without waiting for death, and one first receives the result in the present life and later the result in the next birth. Why does the sutra say: a certain kind of sentient being, having committed and accumulated the five uninterrupted karmas, is necessarily born in hell without interval? The meaning of this sutra is to prevent them from going to other destinies and to show that this karma will surely ripen in birth. If one holds only to the text, one should have to complete all five before being born in hell, and if any one were lacking, or if other karmic causes intervened, it would become a great error. Also, it is said: without interval one is born in hell; this should be taken to mean immediately born without waiting for the body to break up. Or who does not admit that the intermediate existence is a birth? The word hell also covers the intermediate existence, and when the intermediate existence arises without interval after the death existence it is also called birth, as a means toward birth. The sutra says one is born in hell without interval, and does not say that at that time it is the birth existence. If so, how is the sutra verse to be explained? As the sutra verse says:

再生汝今過盛位，至衰將近琰魔王，

You, born again, have now passed the prime of life, and in decline you draw near to King Yama;

欲往前路無資糧，求住中間無所止。

you wish to go on the road ahead but have no provisions, you seek a place to stay in between but there is nowhere to stop.

若有中有，如何世尊言彼中間無有所止？此頌意顯彼於人中速歸磨滅無暫停義。或彼中有為至所生亦無暫停，行無礙故。寧知經意如此非餘？汝復焉知如餘非此？二責既等，何乃偏徵？二釋於經並無違害，如何偏證中有是無。凡引證言理無異趣，此有異趣為證不成。

(The treatise continues:) If there is an intermediate existence, how does the World-Honored One say that in the middle there is nowhere to stop? The meaning of this verse is to show that among humans one swiftly passes away without any pause. Or the intermediate being, in reaching where it is to be born, also has no pause, because its movement is unobstructed. How do you know the sutra's meaning is thus and not otherwise? And how do you know it is otherwise and not thus? The two challenges being equal, why press only one? Both explanations are in no conflict with the sutra, so how can one use it to prove only that the intermediate existence does not exist? In all citation of proof, reason does not differ; since this one allows a different reading, the proof is not established.

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang by imperial command.

分別世品第三之二

Chapter 3, Analysis of the World, Part 2.

當往何趣，所起中有形狀如何？頌曰：

To which destiny is one to go, and what is the shape of the intermediate existence that arises? The verse says:

此一業引故，如當本有形，

Because it is drawn by one karma, it is like the shape of the future life-existence;

本有謂死前，居生剎那後。

the life-existence is what lies from just after the moment of birth until before death.

論曰：若業能引當所往趣，彼業即招能往中有。故此中有若往彼趣，即如所趣當本有形。若爾，於一狗等腹中容有五趣中有頓起。既有地獄中有現前，如何不能焚燒母腹？彼居本有亦不恆燒？如暫遊園，況在中有。設許能燒，如不可見亦不可觸，以中有身極微細故，所難非理。諸趣中有雖居一腹，非互觸燒，業所遮故。欲中有量雖如小兒年五六歲而根明利；菩薩中有如盛年時形量周圓具諸相好，故住中有將入胎時照百俱胝四大洲等。若爾，何故菩薩母夢中見白象子來入己右脇？此吉瑞相，非關中有。菩薩久捨傍生趣故，如訖栗枳王夢所見十事：

The treatise says: If karma can draw one to the destiny to be gone to, that karma brings about the intermediate existence that can go there. Therefore if this intermediate being goes to that destiny, it is just like the shape of the future life-existence there. If so, in the womb of a single dog or the like, intermediate beings of the five destinies might arise all at once. Since an intermediate being of hell would be present, how could it not burn the mother's womb? Even when it dwells in the life-existence it does not constantly burn, as it is only briefly wandering in a garden, let alone in the intermediate existence. Even if it were allowed to burn, as it cannot be seen so it cannot be touched either, because the intermediate body is extremely fine; so the objection is unreasonable. Although intermediate beings of the various destinies are in one womb, they do not touch and burn one another, because karma blocks it. The size of the desire-realm intermediate being is like a child of five or six years, though its faculties are sharp; the intermediate being of a Bodhisattva has a round and complete form like that of a person in the prime of life, with all the major and minor marks, so when dwelling in the intermediate existence and about to enter the womb he illuminates a hundred kotis of four-continent worlds and the like. If so, why does the Bodhisattva's mother see in a dream a white elephant calf enter her right side? This is an auspicious omen and is unrelated to the intermediate being. Because the Bodhisattva abandoned the animal destiny long ago, it is like the ten things seen in the dream of King Krkin:

謂大象井麨，栴檀妙園林，

namely a great elephant, a well, parched flour, sandalwood, a fine garden grove,

小象二獼猴，廣堅衣鬪諍。

a small elephant, two monkeys, a wide and strong garment, and a battle.

如是所夢，但表當來餘事先兆，非如所見。又諸中有從生門入，非破母腹而得入胎，故雙生者前小後大。法善現說復云何通？

(The treatise continues:) Such dreams only presage other events to come, and are not as they are seen. Further, intermediate beings enter through the birth door and do not break the mother's womb in entering, so with twins the earlier one is small and the later one is large. How is the statement of Dharma Subhuti to be explained?

白象相端嚴，具六牙四足，

A white elephant of dignified form, with six tusks and four feet,

正知入母腹，寢如仙隱林。

entering the mother's womb with right awareness, resting like a sage hidden in a forest.

不必須通，非三藏故。諸諷頌言，或過實故。若必須通，如菩薩母所見夢相，造頌無失。色界中有量，圓滿如本有。與衣俱生，慚愧增故，菩薩中有亦與衣俱。鮮白苾芻尼由本願力故，彼於世世有自然衣，恆不離身隨時改變，乃至最後般涅槃時，即以此衣纏屍焚葬。所餘欲界中有無衣，由皆增長無慚愧故。所似本有其體是何？謂死有前、生有後蘊，總說有體是五取蘊。於中位別分析為四：一者中有，義如前說。二者生有，謂於諸趣結生剎那。三者本有，除生剎那死前餘位。四者死有，謂最後念。次中有前，有色有情具足四有，若在無色中闕具三。已說形量，餘義當辯。頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) It need not be explained, because it is not from the Tripitaka. What is said in verses is sometimes exaggerated. If it must be explained, it is like the dream-sign seen by the Bodhisattva's mother; there is no fault in composing the verse. The measure of the form-realm intermediate being is complete, like that of the life-existence. It arises together with clothing, because shame and conscience increase there, and the Bodhisattva's intermediate being also arises with clothing. The bright white bhikshuni, by the power of her original vow, has in every life a natural garment that never leaves her body and changes as occasion requires, and at the very end when she attains nirvana, her corpse is wrapped in this garment and cremated. The other intermediate beings of the desire realm have no clothing, because all of them are grown up without shame or conscience. What is the substance of what resembles the life-existence? It is the aggregates after the death existence and before the birth existence; in general it is said that what has substance is the five aggregates of clinging. Within this, by distinction of stage it is analyzed into four: first, the intermediate existence, whose meaning is as explained above; second, the birth existence, namely the moment of conception in the various destinies; third, the life-existence, namely the other stages except the moment of birth and before death; and fourth, the death existence, namely the last moment. Next, before the intermediate existence, beings with form have the four existences complete, and in the formless realm three are lacking. The shape and measure having been explained, the other meanings will now be discussed. The verse says:

同淨天眼見，業通疾具根，

Seen by those of the same class and by the pure divine eye; swift supernormal power by karma, with complete faculties,

無對不可轉，食香非久住。

unobstructed and unable to be turned back; it feeds on smell and does not stay long.

倒心趣欲境，濕化染香處，

With inverted mind it goes toward the objects of desire; the moisture-born is defiled by smell, and the spontaneously born by place;

天首上三橫，地獄頭歸下。

for gods the head is up, for humans across, and for hell beings the head is down.

論曰：此中有身同類相見，若有修得極淨天眼亦能得見，諸生得眼皆不能觀，以極細故。有餘師說：天中有眼具足能見。五趣中有，人、鬼、傍生、地獄中有見四三二一，謂自下除上。一切通中業通最疾，𣣋虛自在是謂通義，通由業得名為業通，此通勢用速故名疾。中有具得最疾業通，上至世尊無能遮抑，以業勢力最強盛故。一切中有皆具五根，對謂對礙，此金剛等所不能遮，故名無對。曾聞析破炎赤鐵團，見於其中有蟲生故，應往彼趣中有已生，一切種力皆不能轉，謂不可令人中有沒餘中有起，餘類亦然。為往彼趣中有已起，但應往彼，定不往餘。欲中有身資段食不？雖資段食，然細非麁。其細者何？謂唯香氣，由斯故得健達縛名。諸字界中義非一故，而音短者如設建途及羯建途，略故無過。諸少福者唯食惡香，其多福者好香為食。如是中有為住幾時？大德說言：此無定限。生緣未閤中有恆存，由彼命根非別業引，與所趣人等眾同分一故。若異此者，中有命根最後滅時應立死有。設有肉聚等妙高山，至夏雨時變成蟲聚。應言諸中有漸待此時？為說從何方頓來至此？雖無經論誠文判釋，然依正理應作是言：有雜類生數無邊際，貪著香味壽量短促，彼諸有情因嗅此氣，貪香味故俱時命終，由愛覺先感蟲身業，同時於此受細蟲身。或多有情應俱生此，多緣未合住中有中，今遇多緣方頓生此。應俱生者定不異時，如有能招轉輪王業，要至人壽八萬歲時或過此時方頓與果，非於餘位。此亦應然。故世尊言：諸有情類業果差別不可思議。尊者世友言：此極多七日，若生緣未合，便數死數生。有餘師言：極七七日。毘婆沙說：此住少時，以中有中樂求生有故非久住，速往結生。其有生緣未即和合，若定此處此類應生，業力即令此緣和合。若非定託此和合緣，便即寄生餘處餘類，有說轉受相似類生。

The treatise says: This intermediate body is seen by those of the same class, and those who have cultivated and attained an extremely pure divine eye can also see it; the eyes acquired at birth cannot see it, because it is extremely fine. Other masters say: the intermediate beings among the gods have eyes and can see fully. Among the intermediate beings of the five destinies, those of humans, ghosts, animals, and hell see four, three, two, and one respectively, that is, their own and the lower, excluding the higher. Among all supernormal powers, the karmic supernormal power is the swiftest; free movement through the sky is what is meant by supernormal power, and a power obtained through karma is called karmic supernormal power; its force is swift, so it is called swift. The intermediate being fully obtains this swiftest karmic power, which, up to the World-Honored One, no one can stop or suppress, because the force of karma is strongest. All intermediate beings have the five faculties complete. Opposition means obstruction; this is something that even vajra and the like cannot block, so it is called unobstructed. I have heard that when a glowing red lump of iron was split open, one saw worms born in it; this is because the intermediate being of that destiny had already been born. All kinds of force cannot turn it back; that is, one cannot make an intermediate being of a human perish and another arise, and other kinds are likewise. For the intermediate being of that destiny has already arisen, it should go to that destiny and surely not to another. Does the desire-realm intermediate body take coarse food as nourishment? Although it takes coarse food, it is fine and not coarse. What is the fine? It is only smell; for this reason it obtains the name gandharva. Because the meanings of words are not one, short syllables are as in shatkitu and kakitu; since they are abbreviated there is no fault. Those with little merit eat only bad smells, while those with much merit take good smells as food. For how long does the intermediate being dwell? The Great Virtue said: it has no fixed limit. As long as the conditions for birth have not come together, the intermediate being persists, because its life faculty is not drawn by a separate karma, and is one with the common class of the humans and others to be gone to. If it were otherwise, then when the intermediate being's life faculty finally ceased, a death existence should be established. Suppose there is a mass of flesh or the like as high as Mount Sumeru, which turns into a mass of worms in the summer rains. Should it be said that intermediate beings gradually wait for this time? Or that they come all at once from some direction? Although there is no sutra or treatise text to decide it, according to correct reasoning it should be said thus: there are mixed kinds of birth whose number is without limit, which are attached to smell and taste and have short lifespans; those beings, because they smell this vapor, are attached to smell and taste and so die at the same time; because the conscious love first brought about the karma for the body of worms, at the same time they receive the body of fine worms here. Or many beings should be born here together, and because many conditions had not yet come together they stayed in the intermediate existence, and now meeting many conditions they are suddenly born here. Those that should be born together are certainly not at different times, as with karma that can bring about a wheel-turning king: only when human life reaches eighty thousand years, or beyond that, does it suddenly give its fruit, not at other stages. This too should be so. Therefore the World-Honored One said: the differences in the fruits of karma among sentient beings are inconceivable. The Venerable Vasumitra said: at the most seven days; if the conditions for birth have not come together, one dies and is born again repeatedly. Other masters say: at the most seven times seven days. The Vibhasha says: it stays only a short time, because in the intermediate existence one delights in seeking the birth existence and does not stay long, but quickly goes to conception. If the conditions for birth have not yet come together, then if it is fixed that one is to be born here as this kind, karmic force makes these conditions come together; if it is not fixed that one is to be conceived through these conditions, one is lodged in some other place as some other kind, and some say that one is reborn as a similar kind.

且如家牛及狗熊馬，欲增次屬夏秋冬春，野牛野幹羆驢無定。前四中有若不遇時，如次轉生後四同類。豈不中有必無與生眾同分別，一業引故。如何可言轉受相似？

(The treatise continues:) For example, for domestic cows, dogs, bears, and horses, desire increases in turn in summer, autumn, winter, and spring, while for wild cattle, jackals, brown bears, and donkeys it is not fixed. If the first four kinds of intermediate beings do not meet their time, they are reborn in turn as the last four of the same kind. Is it not that the intermediate being necessarily has no common class distinct from the birth, being drawn by one karma? How then can it be said that one is reborn as a similar kind?

如是中有為至所生，先起倒心馳趣欲境，彼由業力所起眼根雖住遠方，能見生處父母交會而起倒心，若男緣母起於男欲、若女緣父起於女欲，翻此緣二俱起瞋心。故《施設論》有如是說：時健達縛於二心中隨一現行，謂愛或恚。彼由起此二種倒心，便謂己身與所愛合。所憎不淨洩至胎時，謂是己有便生喜慰，從茲蘊厚中有便沒，生有起已名已結生。若男處胎依母右脇向背蹲坐，若女處胎依母左脇向腹而住。若非男女住母胎時，隨所起貪如應而住。必無中有非女非男，以中有身必具根故。由處中有或女或男，故入母胎隨應而住，後胎增長或作不男。於此義中復應思擇，為由業力精血大種即成根依？為業別生根依大種依精血住？有言：精血即成根依，謂前無根中有俱滅，後有根者無間續生，如種與芽滅生道理。由斯初位名羯剌藍，亦妙順成此經文句：父母不淨生羯剌藍。又告苾芻：汝等長夜執受血滴增羯吒私。有餘師言：別生大種。如依葉糞別有蟲生，不淨聚中生羯剌藍，故說父母不淨生羯剌藍。故與彼經無相違失。如是且說胎卵二生，餘隨所應今次當說。若濕生者染香故生，謂遠嗅知生處香氣便生愛染往彼受生，隨業所應香有淨穢。若化生者染處故生，謂遠觀知當所生處，便生愛染往彼受生，隨業所應處有淨穢。豈於地獄亦生愛染？由心倒故起染無失。謂彼中有，或見自身冷雨寒風之所逼切，見熱地獄火焰熾然，情欣煖觸投身於彼。或見自身熱風盛火之所逼害，見寒地獄，心欲清涼投身於彼。先舊諸師作如是說：由見先造，感彼業時己身伴類馳往赴彼。又天中有首正上升如從坐起，人鬼傍生中有行相還如人等。地獄中有頭下足上顛墜其中。故伽他說：

(The treatise continues:) In this way, in order to reach where it is to be born, the intermediate being first gives rise to inverted mind and rushes toward the objects of desire. By the eye faculty arisen from karmic force, though it dwells far away it can see the place of birth where the parents unite and gives rise to inverted mind: if male it takes the mother as object and gives rise to desire of a male, if female it takes the father as object and gives rise to desire of a female; in the reverse case it takes both as object and gives rise to hatred. Therefore the Prajnapti Treatise says this: at that time the gandharva has one of two minds operating, namely love or hatred. By giving rise to these two kinds of inverted mind, it supposes that its own body is united with the beloved. When the hated impure emission reaches the womb it supposes it is its own, and gives rise to joy and comfort; from this the intermediate aggregates grow thick and then vanish, and when the birth existence has arisen it is called already conceived. If male, it lies in the womb on the mother's right side, crouching with its back toward her back; if female, it lies on the mother's left side, facing her belly. If neither male nor female, it lies in the mother's womb according to whatever greed has arisen. There is certainly no intermediate being that is neither female nor male, because the intermediate body necessarily has the faculties. Because the one in the intermediate existence is either female or male, upon entering the mother's womb it lies as appropriate, and later, as the embryo grows, it may become a non-male. On this point it should be considered further: is it by the force of karma that the great elements of semen and blood become the basis of the faculties? Or does karma separately produce the great elements that are the basis of the faculties, which then dwell depending on the semen and blood? Some say: the semen and blood themselves become the basis of the faculties, that is, the earlier intermediate being without faculties ceases together, and the later one with faculties continues without interval, like the principle of the seed and the sprout ceasing and arising. By this the first stage is called kalala, and this also well accords with this sutra passage: from the impurity of parents kalala is born. And he told the bhikshus: through the long night you have held and received the drops of blood that increase into ghatita. Other masters say: the great elements are separately produced. Just as worms are born in leaves and dung, and in a heap of impurity, kalala is born; so it is said that from the impurity of parents kalala is born. Therefore there is no fault of conflict with that sutra. Thus the womb-born and egg-born have been discussed; the others will now be discussed as appropriate. As for the moisture-born, they are born by being defiled by smell, that is, smelling from afar the fragrance of the place of birth, they develop love and attachment and go there to take birth; according to karma, the smell is pure or foul. As for the spontaneously born, they are born by being defiled by place, that is, looking from afar and knowing the place where they are to be born, they develop love and attachment and go there to take birth; according to karma, the place is pure or foul. Does one also develop love and attachment in the hells? Because it is arisen from inverted mind, there is no fault in the arising of attachment. That is, that intermediate being, seeing itself pressed by cold rain and cold wind, sees the hot hell blazing with fire, and being fond of the touch of warmth throws itself in; or seeing itself oppressed by hot wind and raging fire, sees the cold hell, and wishing for coolness throws itself in. The former masters said: by seeing what was previously created, at the time of the karma that brings about that result, one's own companions rush off toward it. Further, the heads of intermediate beings among gods rise upward as if rising from a seat; the intermediate beings of humans, ghosts, and animals move in a manner like that of humans and the like. The intermediate being of hell falls headlong with head down and feet up. So the gatha says:

顛墜於地獄，足上頭歸下，

Falling headlong into hell, feet up and head down,

由毀謗諸仙，樂寂修苦行。

because of slandering the sages who delighted in stillness and practiced austerities.

前說倒心入母胎藏，一切中有皆定爾耶？不爾。經言：入胎有四。其四者何？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) Is it so that all intermediate beings necessarily enter the mother's womb with inverted mind as was said earlier? No. The sutra says there are four ways of entering the womb. What are the four? The verse says:

一於入正知，二三兼住出，

The first has right awareness on entering; the second and third also on dwelling and on exiting;

四於一切位，及卵恆無知。

the fourth has none at all stages, and the egg-born always lack awareness.

前三種入胎，謂輪王二佛，

The first three kinds of entering the womb are for a wheel-turning king and the two Buddhas,

業智俱勝故，如次四餘生。

because karma and wisdom are superior, respectively; the fourth is for other births.

論曰：有諸有情多集福業勤修念慧，故死生時念力所持正知無亂，於中或有正知入胎，或有正知住胎兼入，或正知出兼知入住。兼言為顯後必帶前。有諸有情福智俱少，入住出位皆不正知，入不正知住出必爾，順結頌法故逆說四。諸卵生者入胎等位皆恆無知。如何卵生？從卵而出。言入胎藏，以卵生者先必入胎。或據當來名卵生者，如契經說：造作有為。世間亦言：煮飯磨麨。故說卵生入胎無失。云何三位正不正知？且諸有情若福微薄，入母胎位起倒想解，見大風雨毒熱嚴寒，或大軍眾聲威亂逼，遂見自入密草稠林葉窟茅廬投樹牆下，住時見已住在此中，出位見身從此處出。若福增多入母胎位起倒想解，自見己身入妙園林升花臺殿居勝床等，住出如前。是謂三時不正知者。若於三位皆能正知，於入等時無倒想解，謂入胎位知自入胎，住出胎時自知住出。又別顯示四入胎者，且前三種謂轉輪王、獨覺、大覺，如其次第。初入胎者，謂轉輪王，入位正知，非住非出。二入胎者，謂獨勝覺，入住正知，非於出位。三入胎者，謂無上覺，入住出位皆能正知。此初三人以當名顯。何緣如是三品不同？由業智俱如次勝故。第一業勝，謂轉輪王宿世曾修廣大福故。第二智勝，謂獨勝覺久習多聞勝思擇故。第三俱勝，謂無上覺曠劫修行勝福智故。除前三種，餘胎卵生福智俱劣，合成第四。此中外道執我者言：若許有情轉趣餘世，即我所執有我義成。今為遮彼，頌曰：

The treatise says: There are sentient beings who have accumulated much meritorious karma and diligently cultivate mindfulness and wisdom, so at death and birth they are supported by the power of mindfulness and have right awareness without confusion; among them some enter the womb with right awareness, some also dwell in the womb with right awareness in addition to entering, and some exit with right awareness in addition to knowing at entering and dwelling. The word in addition shows that the latter necessarily includes the former. There are sentient beings with little merit and little wisdom who lack right awareness at entering, dwelling, and exiting; if they lack right awareness at entering, dwelling and exiting are necessarily the same; because it accords with the way of composing the verse, the four are stated in reverse. For the egg-born, awareness is always absent at the stages of entering the womb and the rest. How can there be egg-born? They come out of eggs. It is said they enter the womb because the egg-born must first enter a womb; or it is named according to what they will become, as the sutra says: producing conditioned action; and in the world it is said: boiling rice, grinding flour. So there is no fault in saying the egg-born enter the womb. How are the three stages with right and wrong awareness? Sentient beings with slight merit, at the stage of entering the mother's womb, give rise to inverted thoughts, seeing great wind and rain, poisonous heat or severe cold, or a great army with noise and might pressing in upon them, and then they see themselves entering dense grass, thick forest, a leaf cave, a thatched hut, or the foot of a tree or wall; while dwelling they see themselves dwelling there, and at exiting they see their bodies coming out of that place. If merit is greater, at the stage of entering the mother's womb they give rise to inverted thoughts, seeing themselves entering a splendid garden, ascending a flower terrace or palace, or a fine bed and so on, with dwelling and exiting as before. These are the three occasions of wrong awareness. If one has right awareness at all three stages, one has no inverted thought at entering and the rest, that is, at the stage of entering the womb one knows oneself entering the womb, and at dwelling and exiting one knows oneself dwelling and exiting. Moreover, the four kinds of entering are shown separately: first, the first three are the wheel-turning king, the solitary realizer, and the great awakened one, respectively. The first kind of entering is that of a wheel-turning king, who has right awareness at entering but not at dwelling or exiting. The second kind is that of a supreme solitary realizer, who has right awareness at entering and dwelling but not at exiting. The third kind is that of the unsurpassed awakened one, who has right awareness at entering, dwelling, and exiting. These first three persons are shown by the names to come. Why are the three grades thus different? Because karma and wisdom are respectively superior. The first is superior in karma, namely the wheel-turning king, since in past lives he cultivated vast merit. The second is superior in wisdom, namely the supreme solitary realizer, since he long practiced much learning and superior reflection. The third is superior in both, namely the unsurpassed awakened one, since over countless kalpas he cultivated superior merit and wisdom. Apart from the first three kinds, the other womb-born and egg-born, being inferior in both merit and wisdom, together make the fourth. Here the non-Buddhist holders of a self say: if one admits that sentient beings transmigrate to other lives, then the self that we maintain is established. Now to refute them, the verse says:

無我唯諸蘊，煩惱業所為，

There is no self, only the aggregates, produced by afflictions and karma;

由中有相續，入胎如燈焰，

through the continuity of the intermediate existence one enters the womb, like a lamp flame,

如引次第增，相續由惑業，

and as drawn forth they increase in sequence; the continuity, through delusion and karma,

更趣於餘世，故有輪無初。

goes again to other lives, and therefore the wheel has no beginning.

論曰：汝等所執我為何相？能捨此蘊、能續餘蘊，內用士夫此定非有，如色眼等不可得故。世尊亦言：有業有異熟，作者不可得。謂能捨此蘊及能續餘蘊，唯除法假。法假謂何？依此有彼有，此生故彼生，廣說緣起。若爾，何等我非所遮？唯有諸蘊，謂唯於蘊假立我名，非所遮遣。若爾，應許諸蘊即能從此世間轉至餘世。蘊剎那滅，於輪轉無能，數習煩惱業所為故，令中有蘊相續入胎。譬如燈焰雖剎那滅，而能相續轉至餘方。諸蘊亦然，名轉無失，故雖無我而由惑業諸蘊相續入胎義成。如業所引次第轉增諸蘊相續，復由煩惱業力所為轉趣餘世，謂非一切所引諸蘊增長相續脩促量齊，引壽業因有差別故。隨能引業勢力增徵，齊爾所時次第增長。云何次第？如聖說言：

The treatise says: What is the characteristic of the self that you hold to? That which can abandon this aggregate and continue other aggregates, an inner active person, surely does not exist, since like form and the eye it cannot be found. The World-Honored One also said: there is karma and there is maturation, but the agent cannot be found. That is, what can abandon this aggregate and continue other aggregates is only a provisional designation of dharmas. What is this provisional designation of dharmas? When this exists, that exists; because this arises, that arises; and so on, as explained in dependent origination. If so, what kind of self is not refuted? There are only aggregates; that is, the name self is provisionally established only on the aggregates, and this is not refuted. If so, it should be admitted that the aggregates themselves can transmigrate from this world to another. The aggregates perish moment by moment and have no capacity to transmigrate, but because they are produced by the repeated habituation of afflictions and karma, the continuity of the aggregates of the intermediate existence enters the womb. It is like a lamp flame, which, though it perishes moment by moment, can continue and move to another place. The aggregates are likewise, so there is no fault in calling it transmigration; therefore, though there is no self, it is established that through afflictions and karma the continuity of the aggregates enters the womb. The continuity of the aggregates, increasing in sequence as drawn forth by karma, goes again to other lives through the power of afflictions and karma. That is, not all of the aggregates that are drawn forth increase in continuity with equal lengths of cultivation and brevity, because the causes of the karma that draws forth life differ. According to the strength of the karma that draws it, they increase in sequence for just that much time. What is the sequence? As the sage said:

最初羯剌藍，次生頞部曇，

First is kalala, next arbuda is born,

從此生閉屍，閉屍生鍵南，

from this is born pesi, and pesi gives rise to ghana,

次缽羅奢佉，後髮毛爪等，

then prasakha, and later hair, body hair, nails, and the like,

及色根形相，漸次而轉增。

and the forms of the faculties and bodily features, gradually increasing in turn.

謂母腹中分位有五：一羯剌藍位、二頞部曇位、三閉尸位、四鍵南位、五缽羅奢佉位。此胎中箭漸次轉增，乃至色根形相滿位，由業所起異熟風力轉胎中箭令趣產門。如強糞團過量閟澁，從此轉墮劇苦難任。其母或時威儀飲食執作過分，或由其子宿罪業力死於胎內。時有女人或諸醫者，妙通產法善養嬰兒，溫以酥油睒末梨汁用塗其手執小利刀。內如糞坑最極猥賤雜穢充塞，黑闇所居無量千蟲之所依止，常流惡汁恆須對治，精血垢膩潰爛臭滑，不淨流溢鄙穢叵觀，穿漏薄皮以覆其上。宿業所引，身瘡孔中分解支節牽出於外。然此胎子乘宿所為，順後受業所趣難了。或復無難安隱得生，體如新瘡細軟難觸。或母愛子或餘女人，以如刀灰麁澁兩手，執取洗拭而安處之。次含清酥飲以母乳，漸令習受細麁飲食，次第轉增至根熟位，復起煩惱積集諸業。由此身壞，復有如前中有相續更趣餘世。如是惑業為因故生，生復為因起於惑業，從此惑業更復有生，故知有輪旋環無始。若執有始，始應無因；始既無因，餘應自起。現見芽等因種等生，由處及時俱決定故。又由火等熟變等生，由此定無無因起法。說常因論，如前已遣。是故生死決定無初，然有後邊由因盡故。生依因故，因滅壞時生果必亡，理定應爾。如種滅壞芽必不生。如是蘊相續，說三生為位。頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) That is, in the mother's womb there are five stages: first, the kalala stage; second, the arbuda stage; third, the pesi stage; fourth, the ghana stage; and fifth, the prasakha stage. This embryo gradually increases until the stage in which the forms of the faculties and bodily features are complete; then, through the force of the maturation wind arisen from karma, the embryo is turned and made to head toward the birth gate. Like a hard lump of dung that is excessively tight and stifling, once it turns and falls from there, the suffering is intense and hard to bear. The mother, at times, through excess in conduct, food, or labor, or through the force of her child's past sinful karma, dies with the child still in the womb. At that time a woman or a physician, wonderfully skilled in the art of delivery and good at caring for infants, smears her hand with warm ghee and the juice of the sumana plant, holding a small sharp knife. Inside it is like a dung pit, utterly foul and filled with filth, a place of darkness where countless thousands of worms live; foul fluid flows constantly and must always be treated; the semen, blood, grease, and dirt are festering, stinking, and slippery; impurities overflow, base and unsightly; a thin pierced skin covers it from above. Drawn forth by past karma, the limbs are separated from the holes in the body's sores and pulled out. Yet this embryo, borne along by past actions, finds it hard to know where its later karmic result will lead. Or again there is no difficulty and it is born safely, its body like a fresh sore, so tender that it is hard to touch. Either the mother loves the child, or another woman, with two hands rough like a knife-edge of ashes, takes hold of it, washes and wipes it, and puts it in place. Then it is given pure ghee and mother's milk to drink, and gradually becomes accustomed to fine and coarse food and drink, and in turn grows until the stage when its faculties are mature, and again gives rise to afflictions and accumulates karma. When this body perishes, there is again, as before, the continuity of an intermediate existence going on to other lives. Thus birth arises with delusion and karma as causes, and birth again is the cause for delusion and karma to arise; from this delusion and karma there is again birth, so we know there is a wheel that turns round without beginning. If one holds that there is a beginning, the beginning would be without cause; if the beginning were without cause, everything else would arise by itself. We see directly that sprouts and the like arise from causes such as seeds, because place and time are both determined. Also, things arise by ripening and transformation through fire and the like, so there are certainly no dharmas that arise without a cause. The doctrine of a permanent cause was already refuted above. Therefore birth and death certainly have no beginning, but they do have an end, because the causes are exhausted. Birth depends on causes, so when the causes are destroyed, the fruit of birth must perish; reason surely requires this. Just as when the seed is destroyed the sprout surely does not arise. In this way the continuity of aggregates is spoken of by the three lives as stages. The verse says:

如是諸緣起，十二支三際，

Thus these dependent originations, the twelve links, span the three times;

前後際各二，中八據圓滿。

the earlier and later times have two each, and the middle has eight, being complete.

論曰：十二支者，一、無明；二、行；三、識；四、名色；五、六處；六、觸；七、受；八、愛；九、取；十、有；十一、生；十二、老死。言三際者，一前際、二後際、三中際，即是過未及現三生。云何十二支於三際建立？謂前後際各立二支，中際八支，故成十二。無明行在前際，生老死在後際，所餘八在中際。此中際八，一切有情此一生中皆具有不？非皆具有。若爾，何故說有八支？據圓滿者。此中意說，補特伽羅歷一切位名圓滿者，非諸中夭及色無色，但據欲界補特伽羅。《大緣起經》說具有故。彼說，佛告阿難陀言：識若不入胎，得增廣大不？不也。世尊！乃至廣說。有時但說二分緣起，一前際攝、二後際攝。前七支前際攝，謂無明乃至受；後五支後際攝，謂從愛至老死，前後因果二分攝故。無明等支何法為體？頌曰：

The Treatise says: The twelve links are: first, ignorance; second, formations; third, consciousness; fourth, name and form; fifth, the six sense-bases; sixth, contact; seventh, feeling; eighth, craving; ninth, grasping; tenth, becoming; eleventh, birth; twelfth, old age and death. The three periods are: first, the former period; second, the latter period; third, the middle period; that is, the past, future, and present lives. How are the twelve links established in the three periods? The former and latter periods each have two links and the middle period has eight, making twelve. Ignorance and formations are in the former period, birth and old age and death are in the latter period, and the remaining eight are in the middle period. Do all sentient beings have all eight middle-period links in this one life? Not all do. If so, why are eight links spoken of? It is speaking of the complete case. The meaning here is that a person who passes through all the stages is called complete; this does not include those who die young, or beings of the form and formless realms, but speaks only of persons of the desire realm. The Great Discourse on Dependent Origination says that they are all present. It says that the Buddha told Ananda: If consciousness did not enter the womb, could it grow and develop? Ananda said: No, World-Honored One, and so on at length. Sometimes only two divisions of dependent origination are spoken of, the first included in the former period and the second included in the latter period. The first seven links are included in the former period, namely ignorance up to feeling; the last five links are included in the latter period, namely from craving up to old age and death, because they are included in the two divisions of earlier cause and later effect. What is the essence of the links such as ignorance? The verse says:

宿惑位無明，宿諸業名行，

Ignorance is the stage of past afflictions, formations are the past karmas,

識正結生蘊，六處前名色，

consciousness is the aggregates at the moment of conception, name and form precede the six sense-bases,

從生眼等根，三和前六處，

the six sense-bases are from the birth of the eye and other faculties until the three come together,

於三受因異，未了知名觸，

contact is when the causes of the three feelings are not yet understood,

在婬愛前受，貪資具婬愛，

feeling is before the craving for sex, craving is greed for possessions and sex,

為得諸境界，遍馳求名取，

grasping is running about everywhere in order to obtain objects,

有謂正能造，牽當有果業，

becoming means the karma that truly creates and draws forth a future result,

結當有名生，至當受老死。

birth is the linking to the future, and old age and death are the reaching of what is to be experienced.

論曰：於宿生中諸煩惱位，至今果熟，總謂無明，彼與無明俱時行故。由無明力，彼現行故。如說王行，非無導從，王俱勝故總謂王行。於宿生中福等業位，至今果熟，總得行名。初句位言流至老死。於母胎等正結生時，一剎那位，五蘊名識。結生識後、六處生前，中間諸位總稱名色。此中應說四處生前，而言六者，據滿立故。眼等已生，至根境識未和合位，得六處名。已至三和，未了三受因差別位，總名為觸。已了三受因差別相，未起婬貪，此位名受。貪妙資具婬愛現行，未廣追求，此位名愛。為得種種上妙境界，周遍馳求，此位名取。因馳求故，積集能牽當有果業，此位名有。由是業力從此捨命，正結當有，此位名生。當有生支，即如今識生剎那後漸增，乃至當來受位，總名老死。如是老死，即如今世名色、六處、觸、受四支。辯十二支體別如是。又諸緣起差別說四：一者剎那、二者連縛、三者分位、四者遠續。云何剎那？謂剎那頃由貪行殺具十二支，痴謂無明，思即是行，於諸境事了別名識，識俱三蘊總稱名色，住名色根說為六處，六處對餘和合有觸，領觸名受，貪即是愛，與此相應諸纏名取，所起身語二業名有，如是諸法起即名生，熟變名老滅壞名死。復有說者，剎那、連縛如《品類足》，俱遍有為。十二支位所有五蘊皆分位攝。即此懸遠相續無始說名遠續。世尊於此意說者何？頌曰：

The Treatise says: In past lives, the stages of the various afflictions whose result ripens in the present are collectively called ignorance, because they act together with ignorance. By the power of ignorance, those afflictions become active. As when it is said that the king moves, it is not without his retinue, and because the king is foremost, it is collectively called the king's movement. In past lives, the stages of meritorious and other karma whose result ripens in the present are collectively called formations. The phrase "the first line, stage" flows down to old age and death. At the moment of conception in the mother's womb and so on, the five aggregates in a single instant are called consciousness. After the rebirth-linking consciousness and before the arising of the six sense-bases, the intervening stages are collectively called name and form. Here one should say before the four bases arise, yet it says six, which is by reference to the complete state. From when the eye and the other faculties have arisen until the faculty, object, and consciousness have not yet come together, it is called the six sense-bases. After the three have come together, and before one understands the differences in the causes of the three feelings, it is collectively called contact. When one already understands the differences in the causes of the three feelings but has not yet given rise to sexual craving, this stage is called feeling. When greed for fine possessions and sexual craving become active but one has not yet sought widely, this stage is called craving. In order to obtain various superior objects, running about everywhere to seek them, this stage is called grasping. Because of running about to seek, one accumulates karma able to draw forth a future result, and this stage is called becoming. By the force of this karma, from here one gives up life and truly links to future existence, and this stage is called birth. The link of future birth, from the moment consciousness arises in the present and then gradually increases, up to the stage of experience in the future, is collectively called old age and death. Thus old age and death are the present-world links of name and form, six sense-bases, contact, and feeling. This is how the essences of the twelve links are distinguished. Furthermore, the differences of dependent origination are spoken of in four ways: first, momentary; second, connected; third, by stage; fourth, remote and continuous. What is the momentary one? Within a single moment, when one kills out of greed, the twelve links are all complete: delusion is called ignorance, volition is formations, discernment of objects is consciousness, the three aggregates together with consciousness are collectively called name and form, the faculties abiding in name and form are called the six sense-bases, the six sense-bases meeting other things and coming together give contact, receiving the contact is feeling, greed is craving, the binding afflictions associated with it are grasping, the bodily and verbal karma that arise are becoming, the arising of these dharmas is called birth, their ripening and change is old age, and their destruction is death. Some also say that the momentary and connected kinds are as in the Prakaranapada, and that both extend to all conditioned things. All the five aggregates in the stage of the twelve links are included in the stage type. The distant and remote continuity, beginningless, is called remote continuity. What is the World-Honored One's intention here? The verse says:

傳許約位說，從勝立支名。

It is passed down that he spoke by reference to stages, and the links are named from the foremost.

論曰：傳許世尊唯約分位說諸緣起有十二支。若支支中皆具五蘊，何緣但立無明等名？以諸位中無明等勝故。就勝立無明等名，謂若位中無明最勝，此位五蘊總名無明。乃至位中老死最勝，此位五蘊總名老死。故體雖總，名別無失。何緣經說此十二支與《品類足》所說有異？如彼論說：云何為緣起？謂一切有為乃至廣說。素怛纜言因別意趣，阿毘達磨依法相說，如是宣說。分位、剎那、遠續、連縛，唯有情數。情非情等是謂差別。契經何故唯說有情？頌曰：

The Treatise says: It is passed down that the World-Honored One spoke of the twelve links of dependent origination only by reference to stages. If every link contains all five aggregates, why are they named only ignorance and so on? Because in those stages ignorance and so on are foremost. The names ignorance and so on are given by what is foremost; that is, in a stage where ignorance is foremost, the five aggregates of that stage are collectively called ignorance, and so on up to the stage where old age and death are foremost, whose five aggregates are collectively called old age and death. Therefore although the essence is general, there is no fault in the names being distinct. Why does the sutra's account of these twelve links differ from what is said in the Prakaranapada? As that treatise says: What is dependent origination? Namely all conditioned things, and so on at length. The sutras speak according to the different intent of the cause; the Abhidharma teaches according to the characteristics of dharmas, and so it explains thus. The stage, momentary, remote, and connected kinds apply only to the number of sentient beings. Sentient and non-sentient and so on are the difference. Why do the sutras speak only of sentient beings? The verse says:

於前後中際，為遣他愚惑。

In the former, latter, and middle periods, it is to dispel the delusion of others.

論曰：為三際中遣他愚惑？三際差別唯在有情。如何有情前際愚惑？謂於前際生如是疑：我於過去世為曾有非有？何等我曾有？云何我曾有？如何有情後際愚惑？謂於後際生如是疑：我於未來世為當有非有？何等我當有？云何我當有？如何有情中際愚惑？謂於中際生如是疑：何等是我？此我云何？我誰所有？我當有誰？為除如是三際愚惑，故經唯說有情緣起，如其次第說無明行及生老死並識至有。所以者何？以契經說：苾芻諦聽！若有苾芻，於諸緣起緣已生法，能以如實正慧觀見，彼必不於三際愚惑，謂我於過去世為曾有非有等。有餘師說：愛取有三亦為除他後際愚惑，此三皆是後際因故。又應知此說緣起門雖有十二支，而三二為性，三謂惑業事，二謂果與因。其義云何？頌曰：

The Treatise says: In the three periods, to dispel the delusions of others, the differences of the three periods lie only in sentient beings. How do sentient beings have delusion about the former period? Namely about the former period they give rise to doubts such as: In the past, did I exist or not exist? What was I? How was I? How do sentient beings have delusion about the latter period? Namely about the latter period they give rise to doubts such as: In the future, will I exist or not exist? What will I be? How will I be? How do sentient beings have delusion about the middle period? Namely about the middle period they give rise to doubts such as: What is I? How is this I? Whose is this I? Who will I be? In order to remove such delusions about the three periods, the sutra speaks only of the dependent origination of sentient beings, speaking in order of ignorance and formations, birth and old age and death, and consciousness up to becoming. Why? Because the sutra says: Bhikshus, listen carefully! If a bhikshu can see with correct wisdom as it truly is the dependent origination and the dharmas arisen from conditions, he will surely not be deluded about the three periods, such as: In the past, did I exist or not exist, and so on. Some other masters say: Craving, grasping, and becoming, these three, are also to dispel the delusions of others about the latter period, because all three are causes of the latter period. It should also be known that although the gateway of dependent origination described here has twelve links, it is of the nature of three and two: the three are affliction, karma, and basis, and the two are result and cause. What is the meaning? The verse says:

三煩惱二業，七事亦名果，

Three are afflictions, two are karma, seven are bases and are also called results,

略果及略因，由中可比二。

the abbreviated result and abbreviated cause can be inferred by the two from the middle.

論曰：無明愛取煩惱為性，行及有支以業為性，餘識等七以事為性，是煩惱業所依事故。如是七事即亦名果，義準餘五即亦名因，以煩惱業為自性故。何緣中際廣說果因？開事為五、惑為二故。後際略果，事唯二故。前際略因，惑唯一故。由中際廣可以比度前後二際，廣義已成故不別說，說便無用。若緣起支唯十二者，不說老死果，生死應有終；不說無明因，生死應有始。或應更立餘緣起支，餘復有餘，成無窮失，不應更立。然無前過，此中世尊由義已顯。云何已顯？頌曰：

The Treatise says: Ignorance, craving, and grasping are of the nature of affliction; formations and becoming are of the nature of karma; the remaining seven, consciousness and the rest, are of the nature of basis, because they are the bases on which afflictions and karma rest. These seven bases are also called results, and by implication the other five are also called causes, because they have afflictions and karma as their own nature. Why does the middle period speak of results and causes at length? Because it expands the bases into five and the afflictions into two. The latter period abbreviates the result because its bases are only two. The former period abbreviates the cause because its afflictions are only one. From the extended middle period one can infer the former and latter periods, and because the extended meaning is already established, they are not spoken of separately, and speaking would be useless. If the links of dependent origination were only twelve, then since old age and death are not said to have a result, birth and death should have an end; and since ignorance is not said to have a cause, birth and death should have a beginning. Or one should establish further links of dependent origination, and others beyond those, resulting in the fault of infinite regress, so none should be established further. But there is no such fault above; here the World-Honored One has made the meaning clear. How is it made clear? The verse says:

從惑生惑業，從業生於事，

From affliction arise afflictions and karma, from karma arise bases,

從事事惑生，有支理唯此。

from bases arise bases and afflictions; the principle of the links of becoming is just this.

論曰：從惑生惑謂愛生取，從惑生業謂取生有、無明生行，從業生事謂行生識及有生生，從事生事謂從識支生於名色，乃至從觸生於受支，及從生支生於老死。從事生惑謂受生愛，由立有支其理唯此。已顯老死為事惑因，及顯無明為事惑果，無明老死事惑性故，豈假更立餘緣起支？故經言：如是純大苦蘊集。若不爾者，此言何用？

The Treatise says: Affliction arising from affliction means craving gives rise to grasping; affliction giving rise to karma means grasping gives rise to becoming and ignorance gives rise to formations; karma giving rise to bases means formations give rise to consciousness and becoming gives rise to birth; bases arising from bases means that from the link of consciousness arises name and form, and so on up to contact giving rise to the link of feeling, and from the link of birth arise old age and death; afflictions arising from bases means feeling gives rise to craving; the principle by which the link of becoming is established is only this. Since it is already shown that old age and death are the cause of bases and afflictions, and that ignorance is the result of bases and afflictions, since ignorance and old age and death are of the nature of bases and afflictions, what need is there to establish further links of dependent origination? Therefore the sutra says: Thus arises this entire great mass of suffering. If it were not so, what use would these words have?

有餘釋言：餘契經說，非理作意為無明因，無明復生非理作意。非理作意亦取支攝，故亦說在此契經中。此非理作意如何取支攝？若言由此與彼相應，則愛無明亦應彼攝。設許彼攝，云何能證非理作意為無明因？若但彼攝即證因果，愛與無明亦彼攝故，應不別立為緣起支。

(The Treatise continues:) Some others explain: Other sutras say that improper attention is the cause of ignorance, and ignorance again gives rise to improper attention. Improper attention is also included in the links of grasping, and so it is also spoken of in this sutra. How is this improper attention included in a link of grasping? If it is said to be so because it is associated with that, then craving and ignorance would also be included in it. If it is admitted that they are included in it, how can this prove that improper attention is the cause of ignorance? If merely being included proves cause and effect, then since craving and ignorance are also included in it, they should not be set up separately as links of dependent origination.

餘復釋言：餘契經說，非理作意為無明因，無明復生非理作意，非理作意說在觸時，故餘經說：眼色為緣生痴，所生染濁作意，此於受位必引無明故。餘經言：由無明觸所生諸受為緣生愛。是故觸時非理作意與受俱轉，無明為緣。由此無明，無無因過，亦不須立餘緣起支。又緣起支無無窮失，非理作意從痴生故。如契經說：眼色為緣生痴，所生染濁作意。餘經雖有如是誠言，然此經中應更須說。不須更說。如何證知？由理證知。何等為理？非離無明受能為愛緣，以阿羅漢受不生愛故。又非無倒觸能為染受緣，亦非離無明觸可成顛倒，阿羅漢觸非顛倒故。由如是理為證故知。若爾，便應有太過失。諸由正理可得證知，一切皆應不須更說，故彼所說不成釋難。然上所言，經不別說老死有果、無明有因，生死便成有終始者，此難非理，經意別故。亦非所說理不圓滿。所以者何？此經但欲除所化者三際愚故。由所化者唯生是疑：云何有情三世連續，謂從前世今世得生，今世復能生於後世。如來但為除彼疑情，說十二支如前已辯，謂前後中際為遣他愚惑。如世尊告諸苾芻言：吾當為汝說緣起法、緣已生法。此二何異？且本論文此二無別，以俱言攝一切法故。如何未來未已起法，可同過現說緣已生？云何未來未已作法，得同過現說名有為？由能作思力已造故。若爾，無漏如何有為？彼亦善思力已造故。若爾，就得涅槃應然。理實應言依種類說，如未變壞亦得色名，由種類同所說無失。然今正釋契經意者，頌曰：

(The Treatise continues:) Others explain further: Other sutras say that improper attention is the cause of ignorance, and ignorance again gives rise to improper attention; improper attention is spoken of at the time of contact, and so other sutras say: With eye and form as condition arises delusion, and the defiled and turbid attention that arises from it will surely draw forth ignorance at the stage of feeling. Other sutras say: With the feelings born of contact with ignorance as condition arises craving. Therefore at the time of contact, improper attention turns together with feeling, with ignorance as its condition. By this ignorance there is no fault of being without a cause, and there is no need to establish other links of dependent origination. Also there is no fault of infinite regress in the links of dependent origination, because improper attention arises from delusion. As the sutra says: With eye and form as condition arises delusion, and the defiled and turbid attention that arises from it. Although other sutras make such true statements, one might say that this sutra should say more. There is no need to say more. How do we know? We know by reasoning. What reasoning? Without ignorance, feeling cannot be the condition for craving, because the feeling of an arhat does not give rise to craving. Also, contact without inversion cannot be the condition for defiled feeling, and contact cannot become inverted apart from ignorance, because an arhat's contact is not inverted. By such reasoning as proof, we know. If so, there would be too great a fault. Everything that can be known by correct reasoning would not need to be said, so what they say fails to resolve the objection. But as for the objection above, that the sutra does not separately say that old age and death have a result and ignorance has a cause, so birth and death would have an end and a beginning, this objection is unreasonable, because the sutra's intent differs. Nor is the reasoning stated incomplete. Why? This sutra only intends to dispel the delusion of those to be taught regarding the three periods. Those to be taught only give rise to this doubt: How do sentient beings continue through the three times, namely being born in this life from a former life, and this life again giving rise to a later life? The Tathagata only intends to dispel that doubt and speaks of the twelve links as already explained, namely the former, latter, and middle periods, in order to dispel the delusion of others. As the World-Honored One told the bhikshus: I will explain for you dependent origination and the dharmas arisen from conditions. How do these two differ? First, in the root text these two are not different, because both words include all dharmas. How can future dharmas that have not yet arisen be called arisen from conditions in the same way as past and present ones? How can future dharmas that have not yet been done be called conditioned in the same way as past and present ones? Because they have already been made by the power of volition that can make them. If so, how are the unconditioned dharmas conditioned? They too have been made by the power of wholesome volition. If so, it would follow that nirvana is attained in this way. Truly one should say it is according to kind; like what has not yet been destroyed also being called form, there is no fault because the kind is the same. But now we are properly explaining the sutra's meaning. The verse says:

此中意正說，因起果已生。

Here the meaning is rightly this: the cause that gives rise is origination, and the result is the already arisen.

論曰：諸支因分說名緣起，由此為緣能起果故。諸支果分說緣已生，由此皆從緣所生故。如是一切二義俱成，諸支皆有因果性故。若爾安立，應不俱成。不爾，所觀有差別故。謂若觀此名緣已生，非即觀斯復名緣起，猶如因果父子等名。尊者望滿意謂：諸法有是緣起非緣已生，應作四句。第一句者，謂未來法。第二句者，謂阿羅漢最後心位過現諸法。第三句者，餘過現法。第四句者，諸無為法。經部諸師作如是白：此中所說為述己情、為是經義？若是經義，經義不然。所以者何？且前所說分位緣起，十二五蘊為十二支，違背契經，經異說故。如契經說：云何為無明？謂前際無智乃至廣說。此了義說，不可抑令成不了義。故前所說分位緣起，經義相違。非一切經皆了義說，亦有隨勝說。如《象跡喻經》：云何內地界？謂髮毛爪等。雖彼非無餘色等法，而就勝說。此亦應爾。所引非證，非彼經中欲以地界辯髮毛等成非具說，然彼經中以髮毛等分別地界，非有地界越髮毛等，故彼契經是具足說。此經所說無明等支，亦應如彼成具足說，除所說外無復有餘。豈不地界越髮毛等洟淚等中其體亦有，洟等皆亦說在彼經。如說復有身中餘物，設復同彼有餘無明，今應顯示；若引異類置無明中，此有何益？雖於諸位皆有五蘊，然隨此有無，彼定有無者可立此法為彼法支。或有五蘊而無有行——隨福、非福、不動行——、識乃至愛等，是故經義即如所說。所說四句理亦不然。若未來諸法非緣已生者，便違契經。經說：云何緣已生法？謂無明行至生老死。或應不許二在未來，是則壞前所立三際。有說：緣起是無為法，以契經言：如來出世若不出世，如是緣起法性常住。由如是意理則可然，若由別意理則不然。云何如是意？云何為別意？而說可然及不可然。

The Treatise says: The causal part of the links is called dependent origination, because as conditions they can give rise to results. The result part of the links is called arisen from conditions, because they all arise from conditions. Thus both meanings are established for all, since all the links have the nature of cause and result. If so, they should not both be established at once. Not so, because what is observed differs. That is, if one regards a link as arisen from conditions, one does not at the same time regard it as dependent origination, just as with names such as cause and result, father and son. The Venerable Manoratha holds that among dharmas there are some that are dependent origination but not arisen from conditions, and this should be made into four alternatives. The first alternative is future dharmas. The second is past and present dharmas at the final moment of an arhat's mind. The third is other past and present dharmas. The fourth is the unconditioned dharmas. The Sautrantika masters say thus: Is what is said here to state your own view, or is it the sutra's meaning? If it is the sutra's meaning, the sutra's meaning is not like this. Why? First, the stage-type dependent origination described above, with the five aggregates as the twelve links, goes against the sutra, because the sutras speak differently. As the sutra says: What is ignorance? Namely not knowing the former period and so on at length. This is a definitive statement and cannot be forced into being non-definitive. Therefore the stage-type dependent origination described above contradicts the sutra's meaning. Not all sutras are definitive statements; some speak according to what is foremost. As in the Sutra of the Elephant's Footprint: What is the internal earth element? Namely hair, body hair, nails, and so on. Although there are other forms and dharmas there, it speaks according to what is foremost. This too should be the same. The cited sutra is not proof; in that sutra the intent is not to explain hair and so on by the earth element in order to show an incomplete account, but in that sutra the earth element is analyzed by hair and so on, and there is no earth element beyond hair and so on, and so that sutra is a complete account. The ignorance and other links spoken of in this sutra should likewise be complete as in that one, and apart from what is spoken of there is nothing else. Does the earth element not also exist in nasal mucus, tears, and the like beyond hair and so on, and are mucus and the like not also spoken of in that sutra? As is said, there are also other things in the body. Even if there were other ignorance like that, it should be shown now; if one brings in something of a different kind and puts it in ignorance, what benefit is there in this? Although all the stages have the five aggregates, according to whether this is present or absent in that, one can establish this dharma as a link of that. Or there are five aggregates but no formations, such as meritorious, non-meritorious, and imperturbable formations, or consciousness up to craving, and so on, and so the sutra's meaning is just as it says. The four alternatives spoken of are also not reasonable in this way. If future dharmas are not arisen from conditions, this would contradict the sutra. The sutra says: What are dharmas arisen from conditions? Namely ignorance, formations, up to birth and old age and death. Or one should not admit that two are in the future, and then this would destroy the three periods established earlier. Some say: Dependent origination is an unconditioned dharma, because the sutra says: Whether the Tathagata appears in the world or does not appear, this dependent origination remains the constant nature of dharmas. By this intent, the principle can be so; by another intent, the principle is not so. What is this intent? What is the other intent? And why is it said that it can be so and cannot be so?

謂若意說，如來出世若不出世，行等常緣無明等起非緣餘法，或復無緣故言常住。如是意說，理則可然。若謂意說有別法體名為緣起湛然常住，此別意說，理則不然。所以者何？生起俱是有為相故。非別常法為無常相可應正理。又起必應依起者立，此常住法彼無明等何相關預，而說此法依彼而立為彼緣起？又名緣起而謂目常，如是句義無相應理。此中緣起是何句義？缽剌底是至義，醫底界是行義。由先助力界義轉變，故行由至轉變成緣。參是和合義，嗢是上升義，缽地界是有義。有藉合升轉變成起，由此有法至於緣已和合升起，是緣起義。如是句義理不應然。所以者何？依一作者有二作用。於前作用應有已言，如有一人浴已方食。無少行法有在起前，先至於緣後時方起，非無作者可有作用。故說頌曰：

(The Treatise continues:) If the intent is that, whether the Tathagata appears in the world or not, formations and the rest are constantly conditioned by ignorance and so on, and arise from no other dharma, or again have no condition and so are said to be constant, then with this intent the principle can be so. If it is said that the intent is that there is a separate dharma-essence called dependent origination that is serene and constant, then with this other intent the principle is not so. Why? Because arising and so on are all marks of the conditioned. It is not reasonable that a separate constant dharma should have the mark of impermanence. Moreover, arising must be established in dependence on what arises; what connection does this constant dharma have with ignorance and so on, that it is said to be established in dependence on them as their dependent origination? Also, it is called dependent origination and said to be constant; such a meaning of the phrase has no corresponding principle. What is the meaning of dependent origination (pratityasamutpada) here? Prati means reaching, iti is the element of going; pra is a distinguishing element of combination, ut means rising, and pada is the element of being. The meaning is that a dharma that exists, by combining and rising, transforms into arising; because of this, a dharma that reaches its conditions and, having come together, rises up and arises, is the meaning of dependent origination. Such a meaning of the phrase is not reasonable. Why? Because there would be two actions for one agent. For the former action it would be proper to say "having" reached, as when one person eats only after bathing. There is no formation-dharma that exists before arising, that first reaches its conditions and then later arises; without an agent there cannot be an action. Therefore the verse says:

至緣若起先，非有不應理，

If reaching the conditions comes first, it is not reasonable for it to be non-existent;

若俱便壞已，彼應先說故。

if simultaneous, it would be already destroyed, and so it should have been spoken of before.

無如是過。且應反詰聲論諸師：法何時起？為在現在、為在未來？設爾何失？起若現在，起非已生，如何成現？現是已生，復如何起？已生復起，便致無窮。起若未來，爾時未有，何成作者？作者既無，何有作用？故於起位即亦至緣。起位者何？謂未來世諸行正起，即於此位亦說至緣。又聲論師妄所安立作者作用，理實不成。有是作者，起是作用，非於此中見有作者。異起作用真實可得，故此義言於俗無謬。此緣起義，即是所說依此有彼有、此生故彼生，故應引彼釋緣起義。故說頌言：

(The Treatise continues:) There is no such fault. We should first turn the question on the Sound-theorists: When does a dharma arise? Is it in the present or in the future? What fault would there be in either? If arising is in the present, then arising is not yet born; how can it be present? If the present is already born, how can it arise again? If it is already born and arises again, this leads to infinite regress. If arising is in the future, then at that time it does not yet exist; how can it be an agent? Since there is no agent, how can there be an action? Therefore at the stage of arising it also reaches the conditions. What is the stage of arising? It is when formations in the future world are just arising, and at this very stage they are also said to reach the conditions. Moreover, the agent and action that the Sound-theorists falsely establish are not in truth established. There is an agent, and arising is the action, but in this there is no agent to be seen, and an action of arising different from it can really be obtained, and so this meaning is not mistaken in conventional terms. This meaning of dependent origination is just what is said: because this exists, that exists; because this arises, that arises. Therefore that should be cited to explain the meaning of dependent origination. Therefore the verse says:

如非有而起，至緣應亦然，

Just as what is non-existent arises, reaching the conditions should also be so;

生已起無窮，或先有非有，

already born, then arising would be endless; or first existing or non-existing,

俱亦有言已，闇至已燈滅，

or both existing, they also say "having"; after darkness comes, the lamp is extinguished,

及開口已眠，若後眠應閉。

and after opening the mouth one sleeps; if one sleeps afterwards, one should close it.

有執：更以餘義釋難。缽剌底是種種義，醫底界是不住義。不住由種種，助故變成緣。參是聚集義，嗢是上升義，缽地界是行義。由嗢為先，行變成起。此說種種緣和合已，令諸行法聚集昇起，是緣起義。

(The Treatise continues:) Some hold: Let us explain by yet another meaning. Prati means various, iti is the element of non-abiding. Non-abiding transforms into conditions through the assistance of the various. Sam means gathering, ut means rising, and pada is the element of going. With ut first, going transforms into arising. This says that after the various conditions have come together, they cause formation-dharmas to gather and rise up, and this is the meaning of dependent origination.

如是所釋，於此可然。眼色各為緣，起於眼識等。此中種種聚集豈成？何故世尊說前二句，謂依此有彼有及此生故彼生。為於緣起知決定故。如餘處說，依無明有諸行得有，非離無明可有諸行。又為顯示諸支傳生，謂依此支有彼支得有，由彼支生故餘支得生。又為顯示三際傳生，謂依前際有中際得有，由中際生故後際得生。又為顯示親傳二緣，謂有無明無間生行，或展轉力諸行方生。有餘師釋：如是二句為破無因、常因二論，謂非無因諸行可有，亦非由常自性我等無生因故諸行得生。若爾，便成前句無用，但由後句此生故彼生，能具破前無因常因故。然或有執有我為依行等得有，由無明等因分生故行等得生。是故世尊為除彼執，決判果有即由生因。若此生故彼生，即依此有彼有，非謂果有別依餘因。謂無明緣行，乃至如是純大苦蘊集。軌範諸師釋此二句，為顯因果不斷及生，謂依無明不斷諸行不斷，即由無明生故諸行得生。如是展轉皆應廣說。有釋：為顯因果住生，謂乃至因相續有果相續亦有，及即由因分生故諸果分亦生。此欲辯生，何緣說住？又佛何故破次第說，先說住已而後說生？復有釋言：依此有彼有者，依果有因有滅。此生故彼生者，恐疑果無因生，是故復言由因生故果方得起，非謂無因。經義若然，應作是說，依此有彼滅無。又應先言因生故果生，已後乃可說依果有因滅無，如是次第方名善說。若異此者，欲辯緣起，依何次第先說因滅？故彼所釋非此經義。

(The Treatise continues:) Such an explanation can hold here. The eye and form are each conditions and give rise to eye consciousness and so on. How is "various gathering" established here? Why did the World-Honored One speak the first two lines, namely: because this exists, that exists; and because this arises, that arises? It is to make dependent origination known with certainty. As is said elsewhere: Because ignorance exists, formations can exist; formations cannot exist apart from ignorance. It is also to show the successive arising of the links, namely that because this link exists, that link can exist, and because that link arises, the other links arise. It is also to show the successive arising of the three periods, namely that because the former period exists, the middle period can exist, and because the middle period arises, the latter period arises. It is also to show the two conditions of immediate and mediated: that is, that ignorance gives rise to formations without interval, or that formations arise through the force of successive transmission. Some other masters explain: These two lines are to refute the two views of no cause and a constant cause, namely that formations cannot exist without a cause, nor do formations arise because of a constant cause such as a nature or a self, which has no cause of arising. If so, the former line would be useless, since the latter line, because this arises, that arises, can fully refute both the no-cause and constant-cause views. Yet there are those who hold that a self exists and that formations and the rest exist depending on it, and that formations and the rest arise because the causal parts such as ignorance arise. Therefore the World-Honored One, to dispel that view, decisively judged that the existence of a result is just through a cause of arising. If because this arises, that arises, then that is also because this exists, that exists; it does not mean that the existence of a result depends on some other cause. That is: ignorance conditions formations, and so on up to the arising of this entire great mass of suffering. The teachers of the model explain these two lines as showing the non-interruption of cause and result and their arising, namely that because ignorance is not interrupted, formations are not interrupted, and it is because ignorance arises that formations arise; and this should be explained at length in succession. Another explanation: It is to show that cause and result abide and arise, namely that as long as the cause continues, the result also continues, and that it is precisely because the causal part arises that the resultant parts also arise. If this is meant to explain arising, why does it speak of abiding? And why did the Buddha break the order, first speaking of abiding and then of arising? Another explanation says: "Because this exists, that exists" means that when the result exists the cause exists, and when it ceases the cause ceases; "because this arises, that arises" is said because one might suspect that results arise without causes, and so it is said again that only by arising from a cause can the result arise, and not without cause. If the sutra's meaning were so, it should say: because this exists, that does not exist. And it should first say that because the cause arises the result arises, and afterwards it might say that because the result exists the cause exists, and when it ceases the cause ceases; only in such an order would it be called well spoken. If it were otherwise, in explaining dependent origination, by what order would one first speak of the cessation of the cause? Therefore that explanation is not the meaning of this sutra.

復次云何無明緣行，廣說乃至生緣老死？我今略顯符順經義。謂諸愚夫於緣生法不知唯行，妄起我見及我慢執，為自受樂非苦樂故，造作身等各三種業，謂為自身受當樂故造諸福業，受當來樂非苦樂故造不動業，受現樂故造非福業。如是名為無明緣行。由引業力識相續流如火焰行，往彼彼趣憑附中有，馳赴所生結生有身，名行緣識。若作此釋善順契經分別識支通於六識，識為先故。於此趣中有名色生，具足五蘊展轉相續遍一期生，於《大因緣》、《辯緣起》等諸經皆有如是說故。如是名色漸成熟時，具眼等根說為六處，次與境合便有識生，三和故有順樂等觸。依此便生樂等三受，從此三受引生三愛，謂由苦逼有於樂受發生欲愛，或有於樂非苦樂受發生色愛，或有唯於非苦樂受生無色愛。從欣受愛，起欲等取。此中欲者謂五妙欲。見謂六十二見，如《梵網經》廣說。戒謂遠離惡戒。禁謂狗牛等禁。如諸離繫及婆羅門，播輸缽多般利、伐羅勺迦等異類外道，受持種種露形拔髮、披烏鹿皮、持髻塗灰、執三杖、剪鬚髮等無義苦行。我語謂內身依之說我故。有餘師說：我見我慢名為我語。云何此二獨名我語？由此二種說有我故，我非有故說名我語。如契經說：苾芻當知，愚昧無聞諸異生類，隨假言說起於我執，於中實無我及我所。於前四種，取謂欲貪。故薄伽梵諸經中釋，云何為取？所謂欲貪。由取為緣，積集種種招後有業，說名為有。如世尊告阿難陀言：招後有業說名為有，有為緣故。識相續流趣未來生，如前道理具足五蘊說名為生。以生為緣便有老死，其相差別廣說如經。如是純言，顯唯有行無我我所。大苦蘊言顯苦積集無初無後。集言為顯諸苦蘊生。毘婆沙宗如前已說。

(The treatise continues:) Furthermore, how is it that ignorance conditions formations, and so on at length, up to birth conditioning old age and death? I now briefly show this in a way that accords with the meaning of the sutras. Foolish people, not knowing that conditioned dharmas are only formations, falsely give rise to the view of a self and the clinging of self-conceit; for the sake of experiencing pleasure for themselves, and of what is neither suffering nor pleasure, they perform three kinds of karma each of body and the rest. That is, to experience pleasure in their own persons in the future, they perform meritorious actions; to experience future pleasure and what is neither suffering nor pleasure, they perform unmoving actions; to experience pleasure in the present, they perform non-meritorious actions. This is called ignorance conditioning formations. By the power of the projecting karma, the stream of consciousness continues like a flame, going to this or that destiny; relying on the intermediate existence, it hurries toward the place of birth and takes up a body at conception. This is called formations conditioning consciousness. If one explains it thus, it accords well with the sutras, which distinguish the limb of consciousness as extending to the six consciousnesses, since consciousness comes first. In this destiny, name-and-form arises in the intermediate existence, with the five aggregates complete, continuing one after another throughout a whole lifetime, as is said in the Great Causes Sutra, the Analysis of Dependent Origination Sutra, and other sutras. When this name-and-form gradually matures and has the faculties of eye and the rest complete, it is called the six sense-bases. Next, joined with objects, consciousness arises, and because the three come together there is contact that conforms to pleasure and so on. Relying on this, the three feelings, pleasure and the rest, arise, and from these three feelings the three cravings are drawn forth. That is, from being oppressed by suffering, craving for desire arises toward pleasant feeling; or some arise toward pleasant feeling and feeling that is neither suffering nor pleasure with craving for form; or some arise only toward feeling that is neither suffering nor pleasure with craving for the formless. From delighting in feeling and craving, the graspings of desire and the others arise. Here, desire means the five marvelous objects of desire. Views means the sixty-two views, as explained at length in the Brahmajala Sutra. Precepts means bad precepts, which are abstentions that are mistaken. Vows means the vows of dogs, cattle, and so on. Like the Nirgranthas and Brahmins, and the heterodox followers such as the Pashupatas and the Varshaganyas, they take up various pointless ascetic practices such as going naked, plucking out hair, wearing the skin of a black antelope, keeping a topknot, smearing ashes, carrying a triple staff, and cutting off beard and hair. The doctrine of self means that because one relies on the inner body one speaks of what is mine. Some other masters say: the view of self and the conceit of self are called the doctrine of self. Why are these two alone called the doctrine of self? Because through these two it is said that there is something that is mine, and since the self does not exist, they are called the doctrine of self. As a sutra says: Monks, you should know that ignorant, unlearned ordinary beings give rise to the clinging to self according to provisional speech, but in them there is really no self and no what is mine. Among the first four, grasping means desire and greed. Hence in the sutras the Bhagavat explains: What is grasping? It is desire and greed. With grasping as condition, one accumulates various kinds of karma that bring about later existence, and this is called existence. As the World-Honored One told Ananda: karma that brings about later existence is called existence, because existence is the condition. The stream of consciousness continues toward future birth, and as above, having the five aggregates complete is called birth. With birth as condition there are old age and death, whose varied characteristics are described at length in the sutra. The word "purely" shows that there are only formations, with no self and nothing that is mine. The words "great mass of suffering" show that the accumulation of suffering has no beginning and no end. The word "origin" shows that the masses of suffering arise. The Vaibhashika school has been explained above.

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by the Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under imperial decree.

分別世品第三之三

Chapter 3 on the Analysis of the World, Part 3.

無明何義？謂體非明。若爾，無明應是眼等。既爾，此義應謂明無。若爾，無明體應非有。為顯有體義不濫餘，頌曰：

What is the meaning of ignorance? Its substance is the non-existence of knowledge. If so, ignorance would be the eye and the rest. And then this meaning would amount to the absence of knowledge. If so, the substance of ignorance would not exist. To show that it has a substance and is not confused with others, the verse says:

明所治無明，如非親實等。

Ignorance is what knowledge counteracts, like non-friend, non-real, and so on.

論曰：如諸親友所對怨敵，親友相違名非親友，非異親友、非親友無。諦語名實，此所對治虛誑言論名為非實，非異於實、亦非實無。等言為顯非法非義，非事等性非異非無。如是無明別有實體，是明所治，非異非無。云何知然？說行緣故。復有誠證。頌曰：

The treatise says: Just as an enemy opposed to friends is called a non-friend, who is neither different from a friend nor the absence of a friend; truthful speech is called real, and the false and deceptive speech that is its counteragent is called non-real, neither different from the real nor the absence of the real. The word "and so on" is to clarify non-dharma, non-meaning, non-thing and so on, which are neither different nor absent. Thus ignorance has a separate substance, which is what knowledge counteracts, neither different nor absent. How is this known? Because it is spoken of as the condition of formations. There is also a sound proof. The verse says:

說為結等故，非惡慧見故，

Because it is spoken of as a fetter and so on, because it is not bad wisdom or view,

與見相應故，說能染慧故。

because it is associated with views, and because it is said to defile wisdom.

論曰：經說無明以為結縛、隨眠及漏、軛、瀑、流等，非餘眼等及體全無可得說為結縛等事，故有別法說名無明。如惡妻子名無妻子，如是惡慧應名無明，彼非無明有是見故。諸染汙慧名為惡慧，於中有見故非無明。若爾，非見慧應許是無明。不爾，無明見相應故。無明若是慧，應見不相應，無二慧體共相應故。又說無明能染慧故，如契經言：貪欲染心令不解脫，無明染慧令不清淨，非慧還能染於慧體。如貪異類能染於心。無明亦應異慧能染，如何不許？諸染汙慧間雜善慧令不清淨說為能染，如貪染心令不解脫，豈必現起與心相應方說能染？然由貪力損縛於心令不解脫，後轉滅彼貪燻習時心便解脫。如是無明染汙於慧令不清淨，非慧相應，但由無明損濁於慧。如是分別何理相違，誰復能遮自所分別。然異慧類別有無明，如貪異心，此說為善。有執煩惱皆是無明，此亦應同前理遮遣。若諸煩惱皆是無明，於結等中不應別說，亦不應與見等相應，見等不應自相應故。或亦應說無明染心，若謂此中就差別說，應於染慧不說總名。既許無明別法為體，應說此體其相云何。謂不了知諦實業果。未測何相名不了知？為異了知、為此非有？二俱有過，如無明說。此謂了知所治別法。此復難測，其相是何？此類法爾應如是說。如餘處言：云何為眼？謂清淨色眼識所依。無明亦然，唯可辯用。大德法救說此無明是諸有情恃我類性，異於我慢。類體是何？經言：我今如是知已、如是見已，諸所有愛、諸所有見、諸所有類性、諸我我所執、我慢執、隨眠，斷遍知故無影寂滅，故知類性異於我慢。寧知類性即是無明？不可說為餘煩惱故。豈不可說為餘慢等？若更於此巨細研尋，言論繁雜故應且止。名色何義？色如先辯，今唯辯名。頌曰：

The treatise says: The sutra speaks of ignorance as a fetter, a latent tendency, and an outflow, a yoke, a flood, a stream, and so on; it is not something else such as the eye and the rest, nor entirely without substance that could be called fetter and the rest; therefore there is a separate dharma called ignorance. Just as a bad wife and children are called a no-wife and no-children, bad wisdom might be called ignorance; but that is not ignorance, for it is view. Defiled wisdoms are called bad wisdom, and since views exist in them, they are not ignorance. If so, wisdom that is not view should be allowed to be ignorance. No, because ignorance is associated with views. If ignorance were wisdom, it should not be associated with views, because two wisdoms cannot share the same substance and be mutually associated. Moreover, ignorance is said to defile wisdom, as a sutra says: Desire defiles the mind so that it is not liberated, and ignorance defiles wisdom so that it is not purified. Wisdom cannot defile the substance of wisdom itself, just as desire, being of a different class, can defile the mind. Ignorance too should be of a different class from wisdom in order to defile it; why is this not allowed? Defiled wisdoms mixed with wholesome wisdom keep it from being pure and are said to defile it; but as with desire defiling the mind so that it is not liberated, must one say that desire defiles only when it arises in association with the mind? Rather, by the power of desire the mind is harmed and bound so that it is not liberated, and later, when the perfuming of that desire is extinguished, the mind is liberated. In the same way ignorance defiles wisdom so that it is not purified, not by being associated with wisdom, but because ignorance harms and clouds wisdom. What principle contradicts this distinction, and who could prevent one's own distinction? Yet it is said to be good that ignorance exists as a class different from wisdom, as desire differs from the mind. Some hold that all afflictions are ignorance; this too should be refuted by the same reasoning. If all afflictions were ignorance, it should not be spoken of separately among the fetters and the rest, nor should it be associated with views and the rest, since views and the rest would be associated with themselves. Or it should also be said that ignorance defiles the mind. If one says that this is meant in terms of distinction, then one should not use the general name when speaking of defiled wisdom. Since it is allowed that ignorance has a separate dharma as its substance, one should say what the characteristic of this substance is. It is not knowing the truths, actions, and fruits as they really are. By what characteristic is it said not to know? Is it different from knowing, or is there no knowing? Both have faults, as was said of ignorance. This refers to a separate dharma that counteracts knowing. But this is again hard to fathom; what is its characteristic? It is the nature of such dharmas to be spoken of so. As elsewhere it is said: What is the eye? It is pure form, the support of eye-consciousness. Ignorance too is thus; only its function can be described. The Venerable Dharmatrata says that this ignorance is the nature of kind on which sentient beings rely, different from self-conceit. What is the substance of this kind-nature? The sutra says: I now know thus and see thus; all craving, all views, all kind-natures, all clinging to self and what is mine, self-conceit, and latent tendencies, because they are cut off and fully known, are without trace and quiescent; hence it is known that kind-nature differs from self-conceit. How is it known that kind-nature is ignorance? It cannot be said to be the other afflictions. Can it not be said to be conceit and the other afflictions? If one examined this further in fine detail, the discussion would become complicated, so it should be stopped here. What is the meaning of name-and-form? Form has been explained earlier; now only name is explained. The verse says:

名無色四蘊。

Name is the four formless aggregates.

論曰：無色四蘊何故稱名？隨所立名根境勢力於義轉變，故說為名。云何隨名勢力轉變？謂隨種種世共立名，於彼彼義轉變詮表，即如牛馬色味等名。此復何緣標以名稱？於彼彼境轉變而緣。又類似名，隨名顯故。有餘師說：四無色蘊，捨此身已轉趣餘生，轉變如名，故標名稱。觸何為義？頌曰：

The treatise says: Why are the four formless aggregates called name? Because they change in meaning following the force of the established names of the faculties and objects, they are called name. How do they change following the force of names? That is, according to the names commonly established in the world, they turn and indicate this or that meaning, like the names ox, horse, color, taste, and so on. By what cause are they marked with the term name? Because they turn and take up this or that object. And because they resemble names, since they are shown by names. Some other masters say: the four formless aggregates, having left this body, move on to another birth, turning like a name, and so they are marked with the term name. What is the meaning of contact? The verse says:

觸六三和生。

Contact is of six kinds, born of the coming together of three.

論曰：觸有六種，所謂眼觸乃至意觸。此復是何？三和所生，謂根、境、識三和合故有別觸生。且五觸生可三和合，許根境識俱時起故。意根過去、法或未來、意識現在，如何和合？此即名和合，謂因果義成。或同一果故名和合，謂根境識三同順生觸故。諸師於此覺慧不同。有說：三和即名為觸。彼引經證。如契經言：如是三法聚集和合說名為觸。有說：別法與心相應，三和所生說名為觸。彼引經證。經言：云何六六法門？一、六內處；二、六外處；三、六識身；四、六觸身；五、六受身；六、六愛身。此契經中根境識外別說六觸，故觸別有。說即三和名為觸者，釋後所引六六經言，非由別說便有別體。勿受及愛非法處攝無如是失，離愛受觸別有所餘法處體故。汝宗離觸無別有三，可觸及三差別而說，雖有根境不發於識，而無有識不託根境。故已說三，更別說觸便成無用。有餘救言：非諸眼色皆諸眼識因，非諸眼識皆諸眼色果。非因果者別說為三，因果所收總立為觸。說離三和有別觸者，釋前所引如是三法聚集和合名觸。經言我部所誦經文異此，或於因上假說果名，如說諸佛出現樂等。如是展轉更相難釋，言論煩多故應且止。然對法者說有別觸，即前六觸復合為二。頌曰：

The treatise says: There are six kinds of contact, namely eye-contact up to mind-contact. What are these? They are born from the coming together of three, namely that a separate contact arises from the combination of faculty, object, and consciousness. For the five contacts, the three can come together, since faculty, object, and consciousness are allowed to arise at the same time. But for the mind faculty, which is past, the dharma, which may be future, and mind-consciousness, which is present, how do they come together? This is itself called coming together, namely that the meaning of cause and effect is established, or because they have a single effect, and so are called coming together: namely that faculty, object, and consciousness all conform in giving rise to contact. The teachers differ in understanding here. Some say that the coming together of the three is itself called contact. They cite a sutra: As a sutra says: such three dharmas gathered and combined are called contact. Some say that a separate dharma, associated with the mind and born of the coming together of the three, is called contact. They cite a sutra: What is the sixfold six? First, the six internal bases; second, the six external bases; third, the six groups of consciousness; fourth, the six groups of contact; fifth, the six groups of feeling; sixth, the six groups of craving. In this sutra the six contacts are spoken of separately from faculty, object, and consciousness, and so contact is separate. As for the claim that the coming together of the three is called contact, it explains the later-cited six-six sutra: the separate mention does not mean that there is a separate substance. There is no such fault as that feeling and craving would not be included in the base of dharmas; for apart from craving, feeling, and contact, there is a substance of the base of dharmas that remains. In your school, apart from contact there would be no three, and one speaks in terms of the distinction of what is touchable and the three; although there may be faculty and object, they do not give rise to consciousness, and there is no consciousness that does not rely on faculty and object. Therefore, having said the three already, speaking of contact separately would be useless. Some others rescue this by saying: not all eyes and forms are causes of eye-consciousness, and not all eye-consciousnesses are effects of eyes and forms. What is not cause and effect is spoken of separately as the three, and what is included in cause and effect is established collectively as contact. As for those who say that there is a separate contact apart from the coming together of three, they explain the earlier cited: such three dharmas gathered and combined are called contact. The sutra text recited by my school differs from this, or else the name of the effect is provisionally given on the cause, as in the saying "the appearance of the Buddhas is happiness." Thus the mutual objections and explanations multiply, and the discussion is lengthy, so it should be stopped here. However, the Abhidharma masters say there is a separate contact, and the earlier six contacts are combined again into two. The verse says:

五相應有對，第六俱增語。

Five are associated with obstruction; the sixth is that which accompanies naming.

論曰：眼等五觸說名有對，以有對根為所依故。第六意觸說名增語。所以然者，增語謂名，名是意觸所緣長境，故偏就此名增語觸。如說眼識但能了青不了是青，意識了青亦了是青，故名為長。故有對觸名從所依，增語觸名就所緣立。有說：意識語為增上方於境轉，五識不然，是故意識獨名增語，與此相應名增語觸。故有對觸名從所依，增語觸名就相應立。即前六觸隨別相應復成八種。頌曰：

The treatise says: The contacts of eye and the rest, the five, are called contacts with obstruction, since they have faculties with obstruction as their support. The sixth, mind-contact, is called naming contact. Why is this so? Naming means name; name is what mind-contact takes as its object and in which it grows, and so this particular contact is called naming contact. As it is said, eye-consciousness can only know blue and not know that it is blue; mind-consciousness knows blue and also knows that it is blue, and so it is called growth. Therefore the contact with obstruction is named from its support, and the naming contact is established from its object. Some say that mind-consciousness turns upon objects only with the added force of words; the five consciousnesses are not so, and for this reason only mind-consciousness is called naming, and what is associated with it is called naming contact. Therefore contact with obstruction is named from its support, and naming contact is established from its association. The earlier six contacts, according to their separate associations, again become eight. The verse says:

明無明非二，無漏染汙餘，

Knowledge, ignorance, neither of the two, without outflows, defiled, and others,

愛恚二相應，樂等順三受。

associated with craving and with aversion, and that which conforms to pleasure and the other feelings.

論曰：明無明等相應成三，一明觸、二無明觸、三非明非無明觸。此三如次，應知即是無漏染汙餘相應觸。餘謂無漏及染汙餘，即有漏善、無覆無記。無明觸中一分數起，依彼復立愛恚二觸，愛恚隨眠共相應故。總攝一切復成三觸：一順樂受觸、二順苦受觸、三順不苦不樂受觸。此三能引樂等受故，或是樂等受所領故，或能為受行相依故，名為順受。如何觸為受所領行？相依行相極似觸，依觸而生故。如是合成十六種觸。受何為義？頌曰：

The treatise says: Associated with knowledge, ignorance, and so on, contact becomes three: first, contact of knowledge; second, contact of ignorance; third, contact of neither knowledge nor ignorance. These three, in order, should be known as contact associated with what is without outflows, what is defiled, and the others. The others means those without outflows and those other than defiled, namely wholesome with outflows and neutral without obstruction. Within the contact of ignorance, a part frequently arises, and relying on it the two contacts of craving and aversion are further established, since craving and aversion are associated with latent tendencies. Taking all of them together, there are again three contacts: first, contact conforming to pleasant feeling; second, contact conforming to painful feeling; third, contact conforming to feeling that is neither painful nor pleasant. These three are called conforming to feeling because they can bring about pleasant and other feelings, or because they are experienced by pleasant and other feelings, or because they can serve as the support for the aspects of feeling. How is contact experienced by feeling? Because the aspects that rely on it greatly resemble contact and arise relying on contact. Thus altogether there are sixteen kinds of contact. What is the meaning of feeling? The verse says:

從此生六受，五屬身餘心。

From this arise six feelings; five belong to the body and the other to the mind.

論曰：從前六觸生於六受，謂眼觸所生受至意觸所生受。六中前五說為身受，依色根故。意觸所生說為心受，但依心故。受生與觸，為後、為俱？毘婆沙師說俱時起，觸受展轉俱有因故。云何二法俱時而生？能生所生義可成立。如何不立？無功能故，於已生法餘法無能。此與立宗義意無別，如言二法俱時而生，能生所生義不成立；於已生法餘法無能，義意同前，重說何用？若爾，便有互相生失。許故非失。我宗許二為俱有因，亦互為果。仁雖許爾，而契經中不許此二互為因果。契經但說：眼觸為緣生眼觸所生受。曾無經說，眼受為緣生眼受所生觸。又此義非理，越能生法故。若法極成能生彼法，此法與彼時別極成。如先種後芽、先乳後酪、先擊後聲、先意後識等，先因後果非不極成。亦有極成同時因果，如眼識等，眼色等俱。四大種俱有所造色，此中亦許前根境緣能發後識。前大造聚生後造色，何理能遮？如影與身，豈非俱有。有說：觸後方有受生，根境為先，次有識起，此三合故即名為觸，第三剎那緣觸生受。若爾，應識非皆有受，諸識亦應非皆是觸。無如是失。因前位觸故，後觸位受生，故諸觸時皆悉有受，所有識體無非是觸。此不應理。何理相違？謂或有時二觸境別，因前受位觸生後觸位受。如何異境受從異境觸生？或應許受此心相應，非與此心同緣一境。既爾，若許有成觸，識是觸無受。於此位前有識有受而體非觸，緣差故然。斯有何過？若爾，便壞十大地法，彼定一切心品恆俱。彼定恆俱依何教立？依本論立。我等但以契經為量，本論非量，壞之何咎？故世尊言：當依經量。或大地法義非要遍諸心。若爾，何名大地法義？謂有三地：一有尋有伺地、二無尋唯伺地、三無尋無伺地。復有三地：一善地、二不善地、三無記地。復有三地：一學地、二無學地、三非學非無學地。

The treatise says: From the six contacts previously mentioned arise six feelings, namely feeling born of eye-contact up to feeling born of mind-contact. Of the six, the first five are called bodily feelings, because they rely on the material faculties. Feeling born of mind-contact is called mental feeling, because it relies only on the mind. Do feeling and contact arise later, or together? The Vaibhashika masters say they arise at the same time, because contact and feeling are co-existent causes of each other. How can two dharmas arise at the same time? Because the meaning of what produces and what is produced can be established. Why not establish it? Because they have no power; over a dharma already arisen, no other dharma has power. This is no different in meaning from the thesis itself: saying that two dharmas arise at the same time while the meaning of producer and produced is not established; and saying that over a dharma already arisen no other dharma has power, which is the same in meaning as before, so what use is saying it again? If so, there would be the fault of mutual production. It is not a fault, because we allow it. In my school the two are allowed to be co-existent causes and also each other's effects. Although you allow this, the sutras do not allow these two to be each other's cause and effect. The sutra only says: with eye-contact as condition, feeling born of eye-contact arises. There is never a sutra saying that with eye-feeling as condition, contact born of eye-feeling arises. Moreover, this meaning is not reasonable, because it goes beyond what can produce a dharma. If a dharma is well established as producing another, then this dharma and that one are established at different times, as seed first and sprout later, milk first and curd later, striking first and sound later, mind first and consciousness later; first cause and later effect are not unestablished. There are also well-established causes and effects at the same time, such as eye-consciousness and eye and form together, the four great elements together with the derived form; here too it is allowed that the earlier faculty, object, and condition can bring about the later consciousness, and that the earlier gathering of great elements gives rise to later derived form; what principle could prevent this? Like a shadow and the body, are they not co-existent? Some say: only after contact does feeling arise; faculty and object come first, then consciousness arises, and because these three come together, this is called contact; feeling arises in the third moment taking contact as condition. If so, not all consciousnesses would have feeling, and not all consciousnesses would be contact. There is no such fault. Because of contact in the earlier stage, feeling arises in the later contact stage; hence at the time of every contact there is feeling, and there is no substance of consciousness that is not contact. This is not reasonable. What principle contradicts it? Namely that sometimes the objects of the two contacts differ, and because of the contact in the earlier stage of feeling, feeling arises in the later contact stage. How does feeling of a different object arise from contact of a different object? Or it should be allowed that feeling is associated with this mind and does not take the same single object as this mind. Since that is so, if one allows that contact is established, then consciousness is contact and has no feeling. In the stage before this there is consciousness and there is feeling, but the substance is not contact, because the conditions differ; what fault is there in this? If so, the ten dharmas of the great ground are ruined, since they are certainly always together with every kind of mind. On what teaching is their being always together based? It is established on the original treatise. We take only the sutras as our measure, and the original treatise is not our measure; what blame is there in ruining it? Therefore the World-Honored One said: rely on the measure of the sutras. Or the meaning of the great-ground dharmas is not that they necessarily pervade all minds. If so, what is called the meaning of great-ground dharmas? There are three grounds: first, the ground with initial thought and sustained thought; second, the ground without initial thought but with sustained thought; third, the ground without initial thought and without sustained thought. There are again three grounds: first, the wholesome ground; second, the unwholesome ground; third, the neutral ground. There are again three grounds: first, the ground of those in training; second, the ground of those beyond training; third, the ground of neither training nor beyond training.

若法於前諸地皆有，名大地法。若法唯於諸善地中有，名大善地法。若法唯於諸染地中有，名大煩惱地法。如是等法各隨所應更代而生，非皆並起。餘說如是大不善地法，因誦引來，是今所增益，非本所誦。若於觸後方有受生，經云何釋？如契經說：眼及色為緣生於眼識，三和合觸俱起受想思。但言俱起不說觸俱，此於我宗何違須釋？又於無間亦有俱聲，如契經說：與慈俱行修念覺支。故彼非證。若爾，何故契經中言：是受是想是思是識，如是諸法相雜不離，故無有識離於受等。今應審思，相雜何義？此經復說：諸所受即所思，諸所思即所想，諸所想即所識。未了於此，為約所緣、為約剎那作如是說？於壽與煖俱時起中，亦有如斯相雜言故，例知此說定約剎那。又契經言三和合觸，如何有識而非三和？或是三和而不名觸？故應定許一切識俱悉皆有觸，諸所有觸無不皆與受等俱生。傍論已終，應辯本義。頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) A dharma that exists in all the preceding grounds is called a great-ground dharma. A dharma that exists only in wholesome grounds is called a great wholesome-ground dharma. A dharma that exists only in defiled grounds is called a great affliction-ground dharma. Such dharmas, as appropriate, arise in alternation, and do not all arise together. Others say that these great unwholesome-ground dharmas were brought in by recitation, and are an addition of the present time and not what was originally recited. If feeling arises only after contact, how is the sutra to be explained? As a sutra says: With the eye and forms as conditions, eye-consciousness arises, and the three coming together are contact, and together with it feeling, perception, and volition arise. It only says arising together, and does not say together with contact; what contradiction is there with my school that needs explaining? Moreover, the word "together" is also used for what is immediately successive, as a sutra says: practising the mindfulness enlightenment factor together with loving-kindness. Therefore that is not proof. If so, why does the sutra say: this is feeling, this is perception, this is volition, this is consciousness; these dharmas are mingled and not separate, so there is no consciousness apart from feeling and the rest? Now one should consider carefully what "mingled" means. This sutra further says: what is felt is what is thought, what is thought is what is perceived, and what is perceived is what is known. It is not yet clear whether this is said with regard to the object or with regard to the moment. Since the same sort of mingled language is used for vital span and warmth arising together, by analogy it should be known that this is said with regard to the moment. Moreover, the sutra speaks of the coming together of three as contact; how could there be consciousness that is not a coming together of three, or a coming together of three not called contact? Therefore it should be firmly allowed that with every consciousness there is contact, and that all contact is accompanied by feeling and the rest arising together. The digression is finished; the main meaning should be explained. The verse says:

此復成十八，由意近行異。

This again becomes eighteen, through the difference of the mind's close-roaming.

論曰：於前略說一心受中，由意近行異，復分成十八。應知此復聲，顯乘前起後。此意近行十八云何？謂喜、憂、捨各六近行。此復何緣立為十八？若由自性應但有三，喜憂捨三自性異故。若由相應應唯有一，一切皆與意相應故。若由所緣應但有六，色等六境為所緣故。此成十八，具足由三。於中十五色等近行名不雜緣，境各別故。三法近行皆通二種。意近行名為目何義？傳說喜等意為近緣，於諸境中數遊行故。有說喜等能為近緣，令意於境數遊行故。如何身受非意近行？非唯依意故不名近，由無分別故亦非行。第三靜慮意地樂根，意近行中何故不攝？傳說初界意識相應無樂根故，又無所對苦根所攝意近行故。若唯意地，何故經言：眼見色已，於順喜色起喜近行，廣說如經。依五識身所引意地喜等近行，故作是說。如依眼識引不淨觀，此不淨觀唯意地攝。又彼經言眼見色已乃至廣說，故不應難。若雖非見，乃至觸已而起喜憂捨，亦是意近行。若異此者，在欲界中應無緣色界色等意近行。又在色界應無緣欲香味觸境諸意近行。見色等言隨明瞭說，見色等已於聲等中起喜憂捨亦意近行，隨無雜亂故作是說，於中建立根境定故。為有色等於喜等三，唯能順生一近行不？有就相續非約所緣。諸意近行中幾欲界繫？欲界意近行幾何所緣？色無色界為問亦爾。頌曰：

The treatise says: In the earlier brief discussion of feeling in a single mind, through differences in the mind's close-roaming it is again divided into eighteen. It should be known that the word "again" shows that what follows is built on what comes before. What are the eighteen close-roamings of the mind? Joy, sorrow, and neutral feeling, each of six close-roamings. By what cause are they established as eighteen? If by own-nature, there should be only three, since joy, sorrow, and neutrality differ in own-nature. If by association, there should be only one, since all are associated with the mind. If by object, there should be only six, since the six objects of form and the rest are the objects. Thus eighteen is complete with three. Of these, the fifteen close-roamings of form and the rest are called unmixed objects, because their objects are each separate. The close-roaming of dharmas is common to both kinds. What does the name close-roaming of the mind mean? It is said that joy and the rest are close conditions of the mind, because the mind roams repeatedly among the objects. Some say that joy and the rest can act as close conditions so that the mind roams repeatedly among objects. Why are bodily feelings not close-roamings of the mind? Because they do not rely only on the mind, they are not called close, and because they have no discrimination, they are not called roaming either. Why is the pleasant faculty of the mind-ground in the third concentration not included in the close-roamings of the mind? It is said that in the first realm there is no faculty of pleasure associated with mind-consciousness, and also no close-roaming of the mind included in the faculty of pain that has a counterpart. If it is only the mind-ground, why does the sutra say: having seen a form with the eye, one gives rise to joyful close-roaming toward a pleasing form, and so on at length? It is said so because joy and the rest in the mind-ground are drawn forth in dependence on the five groups of consciousness. Just as an unattractive-meditation is drawn forth in dependence on eye-consciousness, and this unattractive-meditation is included only in the mind-ground. Moreover, the sutra says "having seen a form with the eye" and so on, and so there should be no objection. Even if one has not seen but has touched and so on, if joy, sorrow, or neutral feeling arises, it is also a close-roaming of the mind. If it were otherwise, in the desire realm there would be no close-roamings of the mind taking the objects of the form realm and the rest. And in the form realm there would be no close-roamings of the mind taking the objects of smell, taste, and touch of the desire realm. The words "seeing form" and so on are said according to what is clear; having seen forms and the like, one gives rise to joy, sorrow, or neutral feeling toward sounds and so on, and this too is close-roaming of the mind; it is said so in order to be free of confusion, and in this the fixed correspondence of faculty and object is established. Can forms and the rest bring about only one close-roaming among the three, joy and the rest? There is such a possibility, in terms of the series and not in terms of the object. Of the close-roamings of the mind, how many belong to the desire realm? How many objects do the close-roamings of the mind of the desire realm take? The same question applies to the form and formless realms. The verse says:

欲緣欲十八，色十二上三，

Desire taking desire, eighteen; form, twelve; above, three;

二緣欲十二，八自二無色，

two taking desire, twelve; eight taking their own; two taking the formless;

後二緣欲六，四自一上緣，

the last two taking desire, six; four taking their own; one taking above;

初無色近分，緣色四自一，

the first formless access, taking form, four; taking its own, one;

四本及三邊，唯一緣自境。

the four bases and the three borders, only one, taking their own objects.

論曰：欲界所繫具有十八，緣欲界境其數亦然。緣色界境唯有十二，除香味六，彼無境故。緣無色境唯得有三，彼無色等五所緣故。說欲界繫已，當說色界繫。初二靜慮唯有十二，謂除六憂。緣欲界境亦有十二，除香味四，餘八自緣，二緣無色，謂法近行。三四靜慮唯六，謂捨緣欲界，境亦得有六。除香味二，餘四自緣，一緣無色，謂法近行。說色界繫已，當說無色繫。空處近分唯有四種，謂捨但緣色、聲、觸、法。緣第四靜慮，亦具有四種，此就許有別緣者說；若執彼地唯總緣下，但有雜緣法意近行。緣無色界唯一，謂法四根，本地及上三邊唯一，謂法但緣自境，無色根本不緣下故，彼上三邊不緣色故。不緣下義如後當辯。此意近行，通無漏耶？頌曰：

The treatise says: What belongs to the desire realm has eighteen, and the number taking objects of the desire realm is also so. Those taking objects of the form realm are only twelve, excluding the six of smell and taste, because it has no such objects. Those taking formless objects are only three, because there are no five objects of form and the rest to be taken. The desire realm has been discussed; the form realm should now be discussed. The first two concentrations have only twelve, namely excluding the six of sorrow. Taking objects of the desire realm there are also twelve, excluding the four of smell and taste; the other eight take their own, and two take the formless, namely the close-roamings of dharmas. The third and fourth concentrations have only six, namely neutral feeling; taking objects of the desire realm there are also six. Excluding the two of smell and taste, the other four take their own, and one takes the formless, namely the close-roaming of dharmas. The form realm has been discussed; the formless realm should now be discussed. The access of the base of space has only four kinds, namely neutral feeling taking only form, sound, touch, and dharmas. Taking the fourth concentration, there are also four kinds; this is said according to those who allow a separate taking; if one holds that this ground takes only the lower in general, there is only the mixed close-roaming of the mind of dharmas. Taking the formless realm there is only one, namely dharmas. For the four bases, their own ground and the three upper borders, there is only one, namely dharmas, taking only its own objects, because the formless bases do not take the lower, and the upper three borders do not take form. The meaning of not taking the lower will be explained later. Do these close-roamings of the mind include any without outflows? The verse says:

十八唯有漏。

The eighteen have outflows only.

論曰：無意近行通無漏者，故言十八唯是有漏。誰成就幾意近行耶？謂生欲界，若未獲得色界善心，成欲一切；初二定八，三四定四；無色界一。所成上界皆不下緣，唯染汙故。若已獲得色界善心未離欲貪，成欲一切；初靜慮十，餘說如前。初靜慮中唯成四喜，染不緣下香味境故。捨具成六，未至定中善心得緣香味境故。餘隨此理，如應當知。若生色界，唯成欲界一捨法近行，謂通果心俱。有說如是諸意近行，毘婆沙師隨義而立。然我所見經義有殊。所以者何？非於此地已得離染，可緣此境起意近行，故非有漏喜憂捨三皆近行攝。唯雜染者與意相牽數行所緣是意近行。云何與意相牽數行？或愛或憎、或不擇捨。為對治彼說六恆住，謂見色已不喜不憂，心恆住捨具念正智，廣說乃至知法亦爾。非阿羅漢無有世間緣善法喜，但為遮止雜染近行故作是說。又即喜等為三十六師句，謂為耽嗜出離依別。此句差別，大師說故。耽嗜依者，謂諸染受。出離依者，謂諸善受。如是所說受，有支中應知。義門無量差別，何緣不說所餘有支？頌曰：

The treatise says: The mental approaches (manopavicara) that are untainted are not counted, and so it is said that there are eighteen, all tainted. Who possesses how many mental approaches? One born in the desire realm who has not yet obtained a wholesome mind of the form realm possesses all of the desire realm; in the first and second dhyanas eight, in the third and fourth dhyanas four, and in the formless realm one. What is possessed of the higher realms never takes the lower as its object, and is only defiled. One who has already obtained a wholesome mind of the form realm but has not yet detached from desire and craving possesses all of the desire realm; in the first dhyana ten, and the rest as above. In the first dhyana only four joys are possessed, since a defiled mind there does not take lower smells and tastes as objects. Equanimity is possessed in six, since in the preliminary access concentration a wholesome mind can take smell and taste as objects. The rest should be known according to this principle as appropriate. If one is born in the form realm, one possesses only one approach of equanimity in the desire realm, namely that associated with the mind of the fruit of supernormal power. Some say that these mental approaches were established by the Vaibhashikas according to their own understanding, but what I see in the meaning of the sutra is different. Why? It is not the case that one who has already detached from this ground can take this object and produce a mental approach, so it is not that the tainted joy, sorrow and equanimity are all included in approaches. Only the defiled ones that mutually draw the mind and repeatedly occur with their objects are mental approaches. How do they mutually draw the mind and repeatedly occur? Either through love, or through hatred, or through indiscriminate equanimity. To counter these, the six constant abidings are spoken of: that is, having seen a form, one is neither glad nor sad, and the mind constantly abides in equanimity, possessed of mindfulness and right knowledge; and so on at length, up to knowing dharmas likewise. It is not that arhats have no worldly joy in wholesome dharmas as objects, but this was said in order to prevent defiled approaches. Moreover, these very joys and so on are the thirty-six categories of the master's statements, namely differing by whether they rely on indulgence or on renunciation. The differences in these categories were spoken of by the great teacher. Those relying on indulgence are all the defiled feelings; those relying on renunciation are all the wholesome feelings. The feelings spoken of in this way should be known in the factors of existence. The gates of meaning are of immeasurable variety; why are the remaining factors not discussed? The verse says:

餘已說當說。

The rest have been or will be discussed.

論曰：所餘有支，或有已說、或有當說，故此不論。此中識支如先已說，識謂各了別，此即名意處等。其六處支如先已說，彼識依淨色，名眼等五根等。行有二支，業品當說。愛取二支，隨眠品當說。此諸緣起略立為三，謂煩惱、業、異熟果事。應寄外喻，顯別功能。頌曰：

The treatise says: Some of the remaining factors have already been discussed and some will be discussed, and so they are not treated here. Among them, the factor of consciousness has been explained earlier: consciousness means each discernment, which is the mind base and so on. The factor of the six sense bases has also been explained earlier: the consciousness there relies on the pure form, namely the five faculties such as the eye. The two factors of formation will be discussed in the chapter on karma. The two factors of craving and grasping will be discussed in the chapter on latent tendencies. These dependent originations can be briefly established as three: afflictions, karma and the matter of maturation fruit. They should be explained through external analogies to show their distinct functions. The verse says:

此中說煩惱，如種復如龍，

Here the afflictions are like seeds and also like a dragon,

如草根樹莖，及如糠裹米；

like the roots of grass and the stem of a tree, and like husks wrapping rice;

業如有糠米，如草藥如花；

karma is like rice with its husk, like medicinal herbs and like flowers;

諸異熟果事，如成熟飲食。

the matters of maturation fruit are like food and drink that have ripened.

論曰：如何此三種等相似，如從種子芽葉等生？從煩惱生煩惱業事，如龍鎮池水恆不竭。煩惱鎮業生續無窮，如草根未拔苗剪剪還生。未拔煩惱根趣滅滅還起，如從樹莖頻生枝花果。從諸煩惱數起惑業事，如糠裹米能生芽等，非獨能生。或得裹業能感餘生，非獨能感。惑如種等應如是知。如米有糠能生芽等，業有煩惱能招異熟。如諸草藥果熟為後邊，業果熟已更不招異熟。如花於果為生近因，業為近因能生異熟。業如米等，應如是知。如熟飲食但應受用，不可復轉成餘飲食。異熟果事既成熟已，不能更招餘生異熟。若諸異熟復感餘生，餘復感餘應無解脫。事如飲食，應如是知。如是緣起煩惱業事，生生相續不過四有：中、生、本、死，如前已釋。染不染義三界有無，今當略辯。頌曰：

The treatise says: How are these three alike, as sprouts and leaves arise from seeds? From afflictions, the matter of afflictions and karma arises. Afflictions are like a dragon guarding a pool, so that the water is constantly never exhausted: afflictions guard karma so that the continuity of birth is endless. They are like the roots of grass: if the roots are not pulled out, the shoots grow again however often they are cut; if the roots of affliction are not pulled out, they arise again however often they are extinguished on the way to cessation. They are like the stem of a tree, from which branches, flowers and fruits repeatedly grow; from the afflictions the matters of delusion, karma and birth repeatedly arise. They are like the husk wrapping rice, which can produce sprouts and so on, though the rice cannot produce them alone; or, when wrapped in afflictions, karma can bring about other births, though it cannot do so alone. Delusion, as with seeds and so on, should be understood in this way. Just as rice with its husk can produce sprouts and so on, karma with afflictions can bring about maturation. Just as medicinal herbs end when the fruit ripens, karma, once its fruit has ripened, no longer brings about maturation. Just as a flower is the proximate cause for the arising of the fruit, karma is the proximate cause that can give rise to maturation. Karma is like rice and so on, and should be understood in this way. Just as ripened food and drink should only be consumed and cannot be turned again into other food and drink, so once the matter of maturation fruit has ripened it cannot again bring about further birth and maturation. If the maturations again brought about further births, and those again brought about others, there would be no liberation. The matters are like food and drink and should be understood in this way. Thus the matters of afflictions and karma in dependent origination, in the continuity of birth after birth, never go beyond the four existences: intermediate existence, birth existence, original existence and death existence, as explained above. The meaning of defiled and undefiled in the three realms, whether present or absent, will now be briefly discussed. The verse says:

於四種有中，生有唯染汙，

Among the four kinds of existence, birth existence is only defiled,

由自地煩惱，餘三無色三。

by the afflictions of its own ground; the other three have three, and the formless realm has three.

論曰：於四有中生有唯染。由何煩惱？自地諸惑。謂此地生，此地一切煩惱染汙此地生有。故對法者鹹作是言：諸煩惱中無一煩惱於結生位無潤功能。然諸結生唯煩惱力，非由自力現起纏垢。雖此位中心身昧劣，而由數起或近現行引發力故，煩惱現起。應知中有初續剎那亦必染汙，猶如生有。然餘三有一一通三，謂本、死、中三，各善染無記。於無色界除中有三，非彼界中有處隔別，為往餘處可立中有。頌中不說欲色二界，故知於中許具四有。有情緣起已廣分別，是諸有情由何而住？頌曰：

The treatise says: Among the four existences, birth existence is only defiled. By which afflictions? By the delusions of its own ground. That is, all afflictions of this ground defile the birth existence of this ground. Therefore the Abhidharma masters all say: Among the afflictions there is not one that lacks the capacity to moisten at the moment of conception. Yet all conceptions occur only by the force of afflictions, not by the manifestation of entanglements and defilements through one's own power. Although at this moment the mind and body are dull and weak, the afflictions manifest because of the power of being repeatedly aroused or of the nearby present occurrence. It should be known that the first moment of continuation in the intermediate existence is also necessarily defiled, just like birth existence. The other three existences, however, each extend to three kinds: original existence, death existence and intermediate existence may each be wholesome, defiled or neutral. In the formless realm, the three exclude the intermediate existence, because there is no separate place in that realm from which to go to another place that could establish an intermediate existence. The verse does not mention the desire and form realms, so it is known that in them all four existences are admitted. Dependent origination of sentient beings has been analyzed at length; by what do these sentient beings abide? The verse says:

有情由食住，段欲體唯三，

Sentient beings abide by food; the substance of morsel food is only the three of the desire realm,

非色不能益，自根解脫故。

not form, since it cannot benefit its own faculty, and because of liberation.

觸思識三食，有漏通三界，

Contact, volition and consciousness are the three foods, tainted, extending through the three realms;

意成及求生，食香中有起。

mind-made beings and those seeking birth, the intermediate existence, feed on smell and arise.

前二益此世，所依及能依，

The first two benefit this life, the basis and what relies on it;

後二於當有，引及起如次。

the latter two concern future existence, drawing it forth and giving rise to it, respectively.

論曰：經說：世尊自悟一法正覺正說，謂諸有情一切無非由食而住。何等為食？食有四種：一段、二觸、三思、四識。段有二種，謂細及麁。細謂中有食，香為食故。及天劫初食，無變穢故，如油沃砂散入支故。或細汙蟲嬰兒等食說名為細，翻此為麁。如是段食唯在欲界，離段食貪生上界故。唯欲界繫。香味觸三，一切皆為段食自體，可成段別而飲噉故，謂以口鼻分分受之。光影炎涼如何成食？傳說此語從多為論。又雖非飲噉，而能持身，亦細食所攝，如塗洗等。色亦可成段別飲噉，何緣非食？此不能益自所對根，解脫者故。夫名食者，必先資益自根大種，後乃及餘。飲噉色時，於自根大尚不為益，況能及餘，由彼諸根境各別故。有時見色生喜樂者，緣色觸生，是食非色。又不還者及阿羅漢解脫食貪，雖見種種上妙飲食而無益故。觸謂三和所生諸觸，思謂意業，識謂識蘊，此三唯有漏，通三界皆有。如何食體不通無漏？毘婆沙師作如是釋：能資諸有是其食義，無漏修生為滅諸有。又契經說：食有四種，能令部多有情安住，及能資益諸求生者。無漏不然，故非食體。言部多者，顯已生義，諸趣生已皆謂已生。復說求生為何所目？此目中有，由佛世尊以五種名說中有故。何等為五？一者意成，從意生故，非精血等所有外緣合所成故。二者求生，常喜尋察當生處故。三者食香，身資香食往生處故。四者中有，二趣中間所有蘊故。五者名起，對向當生暫時起故。如契經說：有壞自體起，有壞世間生。起謂中有。又經說：有補特伽羅已斷起結、未斷生結。於此經中廣說四句：離二界貪諸上流者為第一句，中般涅槃為第二句，諸阿羅漢為第三句，除前諸相為第四句。又部多者謂阿羅漢，餘有愛者說名求生。幾食能令部多安住？幾食資益求生有情？毘婆沙師說皆具四。

The treatise says: A sutra says: The World-Honored One himself awakened to one dharma, perfectly enlightened and taught it: that all sentient beings without exception abide by food. What are the foods? There are four kinds of food: first morsel food, second contact, third volition, fourth consciousness. Morsel food is of two kinds, subtle and coarse. The subtle is the food of the intermediate existence, since smell is its food, and also the food of the gods at the beginning of an eon, since it produces no change or waste, as oil poured on sand is dispersed and absorbed. Or the food of tiny insects, infants and the like is called subtle; the opposite is coarse. This morsel food exists only in the desire realm, because one is born in the higher realms by detachment from craving for morsel food. It is only bound to the desire realm. Smell, taste and touch, all three, are by nature morsel food, because they can be divided into portions and eaten and drunk, that is, received piece by piece through the mouth and nose. How can light, shadow, heat and cold become food? It is said that this statement is made according to the majority of cases. Moreover, although they are not eaten or drunk, they can sustain the body and are included in subtle food, as in anointing and washing. Form can also be divided into portions and eaten and drunk; why is it not food? Because it cannot benefit the faculty it faces, and because of liberation. Whatever is called food must first nourish the great elements of its own faculty and only afterward others. When one eats and drinks form, it does not even benefit the great elements of its own faculty, let alone others, since the objects of those faculties are separate. At times one produces joy on seeing form; this arises from the contact conditioned by form, and it is food, not form. Moreover, non-returners and arhats have been liberated from craving for food, and although they see all kinds of excellent food and drink, it brings no benefit. Contact means the contacts arising from the combination of the three; volition means mental karma; consciousness means the aggregate of consciousness. These three are only tainted and exist in all three realms. Why does the substance of food not extend to the untainted? The Vaibhashikas explain it thus: the meaning of food is to nourish existences, but untainted cultivation arises in order to extinguish existences. Furthermore, a sutra says: There are four kinds of food, which enable beings (bhuta) to abide and benefit those who seek birth. The untainted is not so, and therefore is not the substance of food. The term bhuta shows the meaning of already born; in all destinies, those already born are all called already born. Again, whom does the term seeking birth indicate? It indicates the intermediate existence, because the Buddha, the World-Honored One, speaks of the intermediate existence by five names. What are the five? First, mind-made, because it arises from mind and is not formed by external conditions such as semen and blood. Second, seeking birth, because it constantly delights in searching for the place of its coming birth. Third, feeding on smell, because the body is nourished by smell as food as it goes to the place of birth. Fourth, intermediate existence, because it is the aggregates located between two destinies. Fifth, called arising, because it faces the coming birth and temporarily arises. As a sutra says: There is the arising that destroys the self-existence, and there is birth that destroys the world. Arising means the intermediate existence. Moreover, a sutra says: There is a person who has cut off the fetter of arising but not the fetter of birth. In this sutra four alternatives are explained at length: those who go upstream having detached from the craving of two realms are the first; one who attains nirvana in the intermediate state is the second; all arhats are the third; those other than the foregoing are the fourth. Also, bhuta means arhats, and the others who still have craving are called seeking birth. How many foods enable the already born to abide? How many foods nourish sentient beings seeking birth? The Vaibhashikas say that all possess all four.

諸有愛者亦由段食為緣資益令招後有，以世尊說四食皆為病癰箭根老死緣故。亦見思食安住現身。世傳有言：昔有一父，時遭飢饉，欲造他方。自既飢羸，二子嬰稚，意欲攜去力所不任，以囊盛灰掛於壁上，慰喻二子云是麨囊。二子希望多時延命，後有人至取囊為開，子見是灰望絕便死。又於大海有諸商人，遭難敗船飲食俱失，遙瞻積沫疑為海岸，意望速至命得延時，至觸知非望絕便死。《集異門足》說：大海中有大眾生，登岸生卵埋於砂內還入海中，母若常思卵便不壞，如其失念卵即敗亡。此不應然，違食義故。豈他思食能持自身？理實應言卵常思母得不爛壞，忘則命終。起念母思在於觸位，諸有漏法皆滋長有。如何世尊說食唯四？雖爾就勝說四無失。謂初二食能益此身所依能依，後之二食能引當有能起當有。言所依者，謂有根身，段食於彼能為資益。言能依者，謂心心所，觸食於彼能為資益。如是二食於已生有資益功能最為殊勝。言當有者，謂未來生，於彼當生思食能引。思食引已，從業所燻識種子力後有得起。如是二食於未生有引起功能最為殊勝。故雖有漏皆滋長有，而就勝能唯說四食。前二如養母，養已生故；後二如生母，生未生故。諸所有段皆是食耶？有段非食，應作四句。第一句者，謂所飲噉為緣損壞諸根大種。第二句者，謂餘三食。第三句者，謂所飲噉為緣資益諸根大種。第四句者，除前諸相。如是觸等隨其所應，一一當知皆有四句。頗有觸等為緣，資益諸根大種而非食耶？有，謂異地無漏觸等。諸有食已捐食者身亦名為食，初資益故。毘婆沙說：食於二時能為食事，俱得名食：一、初食時能除飢渴；二、消化已資根及大。何趣何生各具幾食？五趣四生皆具四食。如何地獄有段食耶？鐵丸洋銅豈非段食？若能為害亦是食者，則與前說四句相違。又《品類足》言：云何為段食？

(The treatise continues:) Those who have craving are also nourished by morsel food as a condition so as to bring about later existence, because the World-Honored One said that the four foods are all conditions for disease, abscess, arrow, root, old age and death. It is also seen that volitional food keeps one alive in the present body. A story circulates: once there was a father who, in a time of famine, wished to go to another region. He himself was starving and weak, and his two sons were infants; he wanted to take them along but did not have the strength. He put ashes in a bag, hung it on the wall, and comforted the two sons by saying it was a bag of parched flour. The two sons hoped for it for a long time and so prolonged their lives; later someone came and took the bag and opened it, and when the sons saw it was ashes, their hope was gone and they died. Again, on the great sea there were merchants whose ship was wrecked in a disaster, so that they lost both food and drink. Seeing piled foam in the distance, they took it to be the shore, and hoping to reach it quickly they prolonged their lives; when they arrived and touched it and knew it was not, their hope was gone and they died. The Sangitiparyaya says: In the great sea there are great creatures who come ashore, lay eggs and bury them in the sand, and return to the sea; if the mother always thinks of the eggs, they do not spoil, but if she forgets them the eggs are destroyed. This should not be so, since it contradicts the meaning of food. Can another's thought of food sustain one's own body? In truth it should be said that the eggs constantly think of the mother and so do not rot, and when they forget, life ends. The arising of the thought of the mother takes place at the stage of contact; all tainted dharmas nourish existence. Why, then, did the World-Honored One say that there are only four foods? Even so, the saying of four is without fault when stated according to what is most excellent. That is, the first two foods can benefit the basis and what relies on it in this body, and the latter two foods can draw forth future existence and give rise to future existence. By the basis is meant the body with faculties, which morsel food can nourish. By what relies on it are meant minds and mental factors, which contact-food can nourish. These two foods have the most excellent capacity to nourish existence already born. By future existence is meant future birth, which volition-food can draw forth. Once volition-food has drawn it forth, future existence can arise by the power of the seeds of consciousness perfumed by karma. These two foods have the most excellent capacity to draw forth and give rise to existence not yet born. Therefore, although all tainted dharmas nourish existence, only four foods are spoken of according to their most excellent capacity. The first two are like a nursing mother, because they nourish the already born; the latter two are like a birth mother, because they give birth to the not yet born. Are all morsels food? There are morsels that are not food, and this should be answered with four alternatives. The first is what is eaten and drunk becoming a condition that harms the great elements of the faculties. The second is the other three foods. The third is what is eaten and drunk becoming a condition that nourishes the great elements of the faculties. The fourth is the case other than the foregoing. Likewise, for contact and the rest, each should be known to have four alternatives as appropriate. Is there anything with contact and the rest as a condition that nourishes the great elements of the faculties yet is not food? There is, namely untainted contact and the rest of other grounds. A body that has been fed and then abandons the food is also called food, because it benefited at the start. The Vibhasha says: Food can perform the function of food at two times, and both are called food: first, at the time of eating, when it removes hunger and thirst; second, after digestion, when it nourishes the faculties and elements. How many foods does each destiny and each mode of birth have? All five destinies and four modes of birth have all four foods. How is there morsel food in the hells? Are iron balls and molten copper not morsel food? If whatever can harm is also food, this contradicts the four alternatives stated earlier. Moreover, the Prakaranapada says: What is morsel food?

謂能資益諸根大種，廣說乃至識食亦爾。彼說且依能資益者說名為食，故不相違。然地獄中熱鐵丸等，雖於食已能為損害，而能暫時解除飢渴，得食相故亦名為食。又孤地獄段食如人。故五趣中皆有四食。世尊所說：有人能施一百外道離欲仙食，若能施一贍部林中異生者食，其果勝彼。何謂贍部林中異生？有作是釋：所有一切住贍部洲諸有腹者。彼釋非理，說一言故。又於此中有施無量異生者食，理勝以食施少外道離欲仙人，何足為奇挍量歎勝？有言：彼是近佛菩薩。理亦不然，施彼獲福，勝施俱胝阿羅漢故。毘婆沙者說：此異生是已獲得順決擇分。此名與義亦不相應，曾無契經或本論說，得順決擇分居贍部林中，當知彼唯自所分別。後身菩薩居贍部林名彼異生。此說應理，爾時菩薩同離欲仙，故對彼仙挍量歎勝，雖施菩薩福勝無邊。乘前挍量且言勝百，理必應爾。由後世尊除彼異生，還將外道對預流向挍量勝劣。若不爾者，世尊則應將彼異生對預流向。已說有情緣起及住。如先所說壽盡死等，今應正辯。何識現前何受相應有死生等？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) It is that which can nourish the great elements of the faculties, and so on at length, and consciousness-food is likewise. That passage says that what can nourish is called food, and so there is no contradiction. Even so, the hot iron balls and the like in the hells, although they can harm after being eaten, can temporarily relieve hunger and thirst and have the aspect of food, and so are also called food. Moreover, in the solitary hells morsel food is like that of humans. Therefore in all five destinies there are four foods. The World-Honored One said: One who could give food to a hundred non-Buddhist ascetics free of desire, and one who could give food to one ordinary being in the Jambu forest, the fruit of the latter would surpass that of the former. Who are the ordinary beings in the Jambu forest? Some explain that they are all who dwell in Jambudvipa and have bellies. That explanation is unreasonable, because the word one was used. Moreover, since in that case giving food to countless ordinary beings would by reason surpass giving food to a few non-Buddhist ascetics free of desire, what would be remarkable about such a comparison and praise? Some say that the person is a Bodhisattva close to becoming a Buddha. That is also not so by reason, because the merit of giving to that person surpasses giving to ten million arhats. The Vaibhashikas say that this ordinary being has already obtained the stage conducive to penetration. This name and meaning are also not in accord, since no sutra or root treatise has ever said that one who has obtained the stage conducive to penetration dwells in the Jambu forest; it should be known that this is only their own conjecture. The Bodhisattva of his last body dwelling in the Jambu forest is called that ordinary being. This explanation is reasonable: at that time the Bodhisattva is like an ascetic free of desire, and so in comparing him with such ascetics and praising his superiority, although the merit of giving to a Bodhisattva is boundless, going along with the earlier comparison it is only said to be a hundred times greater, which must be so by reason. Because afterward the World-Honored One excludes that ordinary being and again compares non-Buddhist ascetics with one who is on the way to stream-entry to measure superiority and inferiority. If this were not so, the World-Honored One would have compared that ordinary being with one on the way to stream-entry. The dependent origination and abiding of sentient beings have been explained. As for death at the exhaustion of life and so on as said earlier, it should now be properly discussed. With what consciousness present and associated with what feeling do death and birth and so on occur? The verse says:

斷善根與續，離染退死生，

Cutting off wholesome roots and their continuation, detachment and falling away, death and birth,

許唯意識中，死生唯捨受，

are admitted to be only in mental consciousness; death and birth are only with neutral feeling,

非定無心二，二無記涅槃。

not in attainment or without mind, the two; the two neutral ones and nirvana.

漸死足臍心，最後意識滅，

In gradual death, consciousness ceases at the feet, navel and heart, and finally mental consciousness ceases;

下人天不生，斷末摩水等。

those going down, to humans, to gods, do not arise; cutting the vital points, with water and so on.

論曰：斷善續善離界地染，從離染退命終受生，於此六位法爾唯許意識非餘。所說生言應知亦攝初結中有。死生唯許捨受相應，捨相應心不明利故，餘受明利不順死生。又此二時唯散非定，要有心位必非無心。非在定心有死生義，界地別故、加行生故、能攝益故。亦非無心有死生義，以無心位命必無損。若所依身將欲變壞，必定還起屬所依心然後命終，更無餘理。又無心者不能受生，以無因故，離起煩惱無受生故。雖說死有通三性心，然入涅槃唯二無記。若說欲界有捨異熟，彼說欲界入涅槃心亦具威儀異熟無記。若說欲界無捨異熟，彼說欲界入涅槃心但有威儀而無異熟。何故唯無記得入涅槃？無記勢力微順心斷故。於命終位何身分中識最後滅？頓命終者意識身根欻然總滅，若漸死者往下人天。於足齊心如次識滅，謂墮惡趣說名往下，彼識最後於足處滅；若往人趣識滅於臍，若往生天識滅心處。諸阿羅漢說名不生，彼最後心亦心處滅。有餘師說：彼滅在頂，正命終時於足等處身根滅故意識隨滅。臨命終時身根漸滅，至足等處欻然都滅。如以少水置炎石上，漸減漸消一處都盡。又漸命終者，臨命終時多為斷末摩苦受所逼。無有別物名為末摩，然於身中有異支節觸便致死，是謂末摩。若水火風隨一增盛，如利刀刃觸彼末摩，因此便生增上苦受，從斯不久遂致命終。非如斬薪說名為斷，如斷無覺故得斷名。地界何緣無斯斷用？以無第四內災患故。內三災患，謂風熱淡水火風增隨所應起。有說：此似外器三災。此斷末摩天中非有，然諸天子將命終時，先有五種小衰相現：一者衣服嚴具出非愛聲；二者自身光明忽然昧劣；三者於沐浴位水渧著身；四者本性囂馳今滯一境；五者眼本凝寂今數瞬動。此五相現非定當死。復有五種大衰相現：一者衣染埃塵；二者花鬘萎悴；三者兩腋汗出；四者臭氣入身；五者不樂本座。

The treatise says: Cutting off wholesome roots and continuing them, detachment from a realm or ground, falling away from detachment, death and rebirth: in these six states it is admitted that only mental consciousness is involved and no other. The word birth said here should be known to include the first conception in the intermediate existence as well. Death and birth are admitted to be associated only with equanimity, because a mind associated with equanimity is not distinct or sharp, whereas other feelings are distinct and sharp and are not suited to death and birth. At these two times the mind is only scattered, not in concentration, since where there is mind there is certainly not no-mind. It is not reasonable that death and birth occur in a mind of concentration, because of the difference in realm and ground, because it arises from preparatory effort, and because of the benefit it gives to what it holds. Nor is it reasonable for death and birth to occur in a state without mind, because in a state without mind life is certainly not harmed. When the body that serves as the basis is about to deteriorate, a mind belonging to that basis must again arise before life ends, and there is no other reasoning. Moreover, one without mind cannot take rebirth, since there would be no cause: apart from the arising of afflictions there is no taking of birth. Although death existence extends to minds of the three natures, entry into nirvana occurs only in the two neutral minds. If one says that the desire realm has equanimity as maturation, then they say that the mind entering nirvana in the desire realm also has neutral maturation of the postures. If one says that the desire realm has no equanimity as maturation, then they say that the mind entering nirvana in the desire realm has only the postures and no maturation. Why can only the neutral enter nirvana? Because the neutral has weak power and accords with the cutting off of mind. At the moment of death, in which part of the body does consciousness cease last? In sudden death, mental consciousness and the body faculty suddenly all cease together; in gradual death, those going down, to humans or to gods cease respectively at the feet, navel and heart. Those who fall into evil destinies are said to go down, and their consciousness finally ceases at the feet; if one goes to the human destiny consciousness ceases at the navel, and if one goes to be born in heaven consciousness ceases at the heart. Arhats are said not to be reborn, and their last mind also ceases at the heart. Other teachers say: it ceases at the crown, because at the moment of death the body faculty ceases at the feet and so on, and mental consciousness ceases along with it. At the approach of death the body faculty gradually ceases and, on reaching the feet and so on, suddenly ceases entirely, just as a little water placed on a hot stone gradually decreases and dwindles until it is all gone in one place. Moreover, those who die gradually are mostly oppressed at the time of death by the painful feeling of the cutting of the vital points (marman). There is no separate thing called a vital point, but in the body there are joints of a different kind, and touching them leads to death; these are called vital points. If one of water, fire or wind increases, it is like a sharp blade touching those vital points, and from this strong painful feeling arises and soon death follows. It is not like cutting firewood that is called cutting; it is called cutting because the cutting is not felt. Why does the earth element have no such cutting function? Because it lacks a fourth internal calamity. The three internal calamities are wind, heat and phlegm, that is, the increase of wind, fire and water arising as appropriate. Some say: this resembles the three calamities of the external world. This cutting of the vital points does not occur among the gods, but when divine beings are about to die, five minor signs of decline appear first: first, clothes and ornaments give out unpleasant sounds; second, the body's radiance suddenly dims; third, at bathing time water drops cling to the body; fourth, a nature once restless is now fixed on one object; fifth, eyes once still now blink often. The appearance of these five signs does not mean death is certain. There are also five great signs of decline: first, clothes are stained with dust; second, flower garlands wither; third, sweat comes from both armpits; fourth, a foul smell enters the body; fifth, one finds no pleasure in one's seat.

此五相現必定當死。世尊於此有情世間生住沒中建立三聚。何謂三聚？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) When these five signs appear, death is certain. In the arising, abiding and passing away of the world of sentient beings, the World-Honored One established three groups. What are the three groups? The verse says:

正邪不定聚，聖造無間餘。

The fixed in the right, the fixed in the wrong, and the unfixed; the noble, those who commit the heinous crimes, and the rest.

論曰：一正性定聚、二邪性定聚、三不定性聚。何名正性？謂契經言：貪無餘斷，瞋無餘斷，痴無餘斷。一切煩惱皆無餘斷，是名正性。定者謂聖，聖謂已有無漏道生，遠諸惡法故名為聖，獲得畢竟離繫得故。定盡煩惱，故名正定。諸已獲得順解脫分者，亦定得涅槃，何非正定？彼後或墮邪定聚故。又得涅槃時未定故，非如預流者極七返有等。又彼未能捨邪性故，不名正定。何名邪性？謂諸地獄、傍生、餓鬼，是名邪性。定謂無間，造無間者必墮地獄，故名邪定。正邪定餘，名不定性。彼待二緣，可成二故。

The treatise says: The first is the group fixed in rightness, the second the group fixed in wrongness, and the third the unfixed group. What is called rightness? A sutra says: the complete cutting off of craving, the complete cutting off of hatred, the complete cutting off of delusion; the complete cutting off of all afflictions is called rightness. Fixed means the noble: the noble are those in whom the untainted path has already arisen, who are called noble because they are far from evil dharmas and have obtained the final possession of separation. Because they are certain to exhaust the afflictions, they are called fixed in rightness. Those who have already obtained the stage conducive to liberation are also certain to attain nirvana; why are they not fixed in rightness? Because later they might fall into the group fixed in wrongness. Also because the time of attaining nirvana is not yet fixed, unlike stream-enterers who have at most seven more rebirths and so on. Also because they have not yet abandoned wrongness, they are not called fixed in rightness. What is called wrongness? The hells, animals and hungry ghosts are called wrongness. Fixed means without interval: those who commit the heinous crimes without interval will certainly fall into hell, and so are called fixed in wrongness. Those other than the fixed in rightness and the fixed in wrongness are called the unfixed, since depending on two conditions they can become either of the two.

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang by imperial order.

分別世品第三之四

Chapter 3 on the Analysis of the World, Part 4.

如是已說有情世間。器世間今當說。頌曰：

The world of sentient beings has now been explained. The world of vessels (the physical world) will now be discussed. The verse says:

安立器世間，風輪最居下，

In establishing the vessel world, the wind wheel lies lowest of all,

其量廣無數，厚十六洛叉，

its breadth is countless, and its thickness is sixteen laksha;

次上水輪深，十一億二萬，

above it is the water wheel, with a depth of one hundred and twelve thousand myriads,

下八洛叉水，餘凝結成金，

below it eight laksha of water, the rest congealing into gold;

此水金輪廣，徑十二洛叉，

the breadth of the water and gold wheels has a diameter of twelve laksha,

三千四百半，周圍此三倍。

three thousand four hundred and fifty, and the circumference is three times this.

論曰：許此三千大千世界如是安立形量不同。謂諸有情業增上力，先於最下依止虛空有風輪生，廣無數、厚十六億踰繕那。如是風輪其體堅密，假設有一大諾健那，以金剛輪奮威懸擊，金剛有碎風輪無損。又諸有情業增上力，起大雲雨澍風輪上，滴如車軸積水成輪。如是水輪於未凝結位，深十一億二萬踰繕那。如何水輪不傍流散？有餘師說：一切有情業力所持令不流散。如所飲食未熟變時，終不流移墮於熟藏。有餘部說：由風所持令不流散，如篅持穀。有情業力感別風起，搏擊此水上結成金，如熟乳停上凝成膜，故水輪減唯厚八洛叉，餘轉成金，厚三億二萬。二輪廣量其數是同，謂徑十二億三千四百半。周圍其邊數成三倍，謂周圍量成三十六億一萬三百五十踰繕那。頌曰：

The treatise says: It is admitted that this trichiliocosm is established in this way, with its dimensions differing. That is, by the dominant power of the karma of sentient beings, first at the very bottom, resting on space, a wind wheel arises, countless in breadth and sixteen hundred million yojanas thick. The substance of this wind wheel is so solid and dense that if a great Naraka-like strongman were to strike it with all his might using a diamond wheel, the diamond would shatter and the wind wheel would be unharmed. Again, by the dominant power of the karma of sentient beings, great clouds arise and rain down upon the wind wheel, with drops like the axles of carts, and the accumulated water forms a wheel. This water wheel, before it congeals, has a depth of one billion one hundred and twenty thousand yojanas. How does the water wheel not flow away sideways? Some other teachers say that the karma of all sentient beings holds it so that it does not flow away, just as food and drink that have been eaten do not move and fall into the intestine for ripened food before they have been digested. Other schools say that it is held by wind so that it does not flow away, as a granary holds grain. The karma of sentient beings gives rise to a separate wind, which strikes this water and makes it form gold above, as ripened milk when left forms a skin on top; thus the water wheel is reduced to a thickness of only eight laksha, and the rest turns into gold, with a thickness of three hundred and twenty million. The breadth of the two wheels is the same, namely a diameter of one billion two hundred and thirty-four million five hundred thousand. The numbers of their circumference are three times this, namely a circumference of three billion six hundred and ten million one hundred thousand three hundred and fifty yojanas. The verse says:

蘇迷盧處中，次踰健達羅，

Mount Sumeru stands in the center, then Yugandhara,

伊沙馱羅山，朅地洛迦山，

Mount Ishadhara, and Mount Khadiraka,

蘇達梨舍那，頞濕縛羯拏，

Sudarshana, Ashvakarna,

毘那怛迦山，尼民達羅山，

Mount Vinataka and Mount Nemindhara,

於大洲等外，有鐵輪圍山，

and beyond the great continents and the rest, the iron Cakravada mountains encircle all;

前七金所成，蘇迷盧四寶，

the first seven are made of gold, while Sumeru is made of four jewels;

入水皆八萬，妙高出亦然，

each is eighty thousand yojanas into the water, and Sumeru also rises that high,

餘八半半下，廣皆等高量。

and the other eight are each half the one before, their breadth equal to their height.

論曰：於金輪上有九大山，妙高山王處中而住，餘八週匝繞妙高山。於八山中前七名內，第七山外有大洲等。此外復有鐵輪圍山，周匝如輪圍一世界。持雙等七唯金所成。妙高山王四寶為體，謂如次四面北、東、南、西，金、銀、吠琉璃、頗胝迦寶。隨寶威德色顯於空，故贍部洲空似吠琉璃色。如是寶等從何而生？亦諸有情業增上力。復大雲起雨金輪上滴如車軸，積水奔濤，其水即為眾寶種藏。由具種種威德猛風鑽擊變生眾寶類等。如是變水生寶等時，因滅果生，體不俱有，非如數論轉變所成。數論云何執轉變義？謂執有法自性常存，有餘法生、有餘法滅。如是轉變何理相違？謂必無容有法常住，可執別有法滅法生。誰言法外別有有法？唯即此法於轉變時異相所依名為有法。此亦非理。非理者何？即是此物而不如此，如是言義曾所未聞。如是變生金寶等已，復由業力引起別風，簡別寶等攝令聚集成山成洲，分水甘醎令別成立內海外海。如是九山住金輪上，入水量皆等八萬踰繕那，蘇迷盧山出水亦爾。餘八出水半半漸卑，謂初持雙出水四萬，乃至最後鐵輪圍山出水三百一十二半。如是九山一一廣量，各各與自出水量同。頌曰：

The treatise says: On the golden wheel there are nine great mountains. Sumeru, king of mountains, stands in the middle, and the other eight encircle Sumeru all around. Of the eight mountains, beyond the seventh named in the first group, there are the great continents and so on. Beyond this there is further the iron wheel-encircling mountain, which surrounds a world like a wheel rim. The seven beginning with Yugandhara are made of gold alone. The king of mountains, Sumeru, is made of four jewels: on its four faces, to the north, east, south, and west in order, gold, silver, lapis lazuli, and crystal. According to the majestic power of each jewel, its color shows in the sky; hence the sky of Jambudvipa looks like the color of lapis lazuli. From what do such jewels arise? Again from the dominant force of the karma of sentient beings. Moreover, great clouds rise and rain on the golden wheel, with drops like cart-axles, and the accumulated water in surging waves becomes the storehouse of seeds of the many jewels. Fierce winds with various kinds of majestic power bore into and strike it, transforming it to produce the many jewels and their kinds. When water is thus transformed into jewels and the like, the cause ceases and the effect arises, and their substances do not coexist; it is not a transformation as the Samkhya masters assert. How do the Samkhyas hold the meaning of transformation? They hold that a dharma-possessor's own nature is permanent, while some other dharma arises and some other dharma ceases. What principle contradicts this kind of transformation? Namely that it is certainly impossible for a dharma to remain permanent while one can hold that a separate dharma ceases and a separate dharma arises. Who says that apart from dharmas there is a separate dharma-possessor? It is only the support of different aspects at the time of transformation of this very dharma that is called the dharma-possessor. This too is unreasonable. What is unreasonable? It is that one says it is this very thing and yet not so; such a meaning has never been heard. Having thus transformed and produced gold, jewels, and the like, by the power of karma a separate wind is further raised, which sorts the jewels and gathers them together to form mountains and continents, and divides the water into sweet and salty so that the inner seas and the outer sea are separately established. Thus the nine mountains stand on the golden wheel, each entering the water the same eighty thousand yojanas; Mount Sumeru likewise rises out of the water. The other eight rise out of the water by half and half, in descending order: first, Yugandhara rises forty thousand, and so on until the last, the iron wheel-encircling mountain, which rises three hundred twelve and a half. The breadth of each of the nine mountains is the same as its height above water. The verse says:

山間有八海，前七名為內，

Between the mountains there are eight seas; the first seven are called inner;

最初廣八萬，四邊各三倍，

the first is eighty thousand wide, and on each of its four sides three times that;

餘六半半陿，第八名為外，

the other six narrow by half and half; the eighth is called the outer,

三洛叉二萬，二千踰繕那。

three lakhs, twenty thousand, and two thousand yojanas.

論曰：妙高為初、輪圍最後，中間八海，前七名內。七中皆具八功德水：一甘、二冷、三軟、四輕、五清淨、六不臭、七飲時不損喉、八飲已不傷腹。如是七海初廣八萬，約持雙山內邊周量，於其四面數各三倍，謂各成二億四萬踰繕那。其餘六海量半半陿，謂第二海量廣四萬，乃至第七量廣一千二百五十。此等不說周圍量者，以煩多故。第八名外，醎水盈滿，量廣三億二萬二千。頌曰：

The treatise says: Sumeru is first and the wheel-encircling mountain is last; between them are eight seas, of which the first seven are called inner. All seven are full of water with eight virtues: first, sweet; second, cool; third, soft; fourth, light; fifth, clear and pure; sixth, not foul-smelling; seventh, not harming the throat when drunk; eighth, not hurting the stomach after drinking. The first of these seven seas is eighty thousand wide, measured along the inner edge of Mount Yugandhara, and on each of its four sides it is three times that, namely two hundred forty thousand yojanas each. The other six seas narrow by half and half: the second sea is forty thousand wide, and so on until the seventh is twelve hundred fifty wide. The circumferences of these are not given because they would be too many. The eighth is called outer, filled with salt water, and its breadth is three hundred twenty-two thousand. The verse says:

於中大洲相，南贍部如車，

Among them, the characteristics of the great continents: in the south Jambudvipa is like a cart,

三邊各二千，南邊有三半；

three sides of two thousand each, and the south side three and a half;

東毘提訶洲，其相如半月，

in the east Purvavideha, its shape like a half-moon,

三邊如贍部，東邊三百半；

with three sides like Jambudvipa, and the east side three hundred fifty;

西瞿陀尼洲，其相圓無缺，

in the west Godaniya, its shape round and without gaps,

徑二千五百，周圍此三倍；

with a diameter of two thousand five hundred, and a circumference three times that;

北俱盧畟方，面各二千等，

in the north Uttarakuru is square, each face two thousand and equal,

中洲復有八，四洲邊各二。

and there are eight middle continents, two beside each of the four continents.

論曰：於外海中大洲有四，謂於四面對妙高山。南贍部洲北廣南陿，三邊量等，其相如車。南邊唯廣三踰繕那半，三邊各有二千踰繕那。唯此洲中有金剛座，上窮地際下據金輪，一切菩薩將登正覺皆坐此座上起金剛喻定，以無餘依及餘處所有堅固力能持此故。東勝身洲東陿西廣，三邊量等，形如半月。東三百五十，三邊各二千。西牛貨洲圓如滿月，徑二千五百，周圍七千半。北俱盧洲形如方座，四邊量等，面各二千。等言為明無少增減。隨其洲相人面亦然。復有八中洲，是大洲眷屬，謂四大洲側各有二中洲。贍部洲邊二中洲者，一遮末羅洲、二筏羅遮末羅洲。勝身洲邊二中洲者，一提訶洲、二毘提訶洲。牛貨洲邊二中洲者，一舍搋洲、二嗢怛羅漫怛裡拏洲。俱盧洲邊二中洲者，一矩拉婆洲、二憍拉婆洲。此一切洲皆人所住。有說：唯一邏剎娑居。頌曰：

The treatise says: In the outer sea there are four great continents, namely the four facing the four sides of Mount Sumeru. Jambudvipa in the south is wide in the north and narrow in the south, its three sides equal in measure, and its shape is like a cart. The south side is only three and a half yojanas wide, and each of the three sides is two thousand yojanas. Only in this continent is there the vajra seat, which reaches the limit of the earth above and rests on the golden wheel below; all bodhisattvas, when about to ascend to perfect enlightenment, sit on this seat and enter the vajra-like concentration, because no other support or place has the firm strength to hold this. Purvavideha in the east is narrow in the east and wide in the west, with three sides equal in measure, shaped like a half-moon. The east side is three hundred fifty, and each of the three sides is two thousand. Aparagodaniya in the west is round like a full moon, with a diameter of two thousand five hundred and a circumference of seven thousand five hundred. Uttarakuru in the north is shaped like a square seat, with four equal sides, each face two thousand. The word "equal" is to show that there is no slight increase or decrease. According to the characteristics of each continent, the people's faces are likewise. There are further eight middle continents, which are the retinue of the great continents, namely two middle continents beside each of the four great continents. The two middle continents beside Jambudvipa are: first, Camara; second, Varacamara. The two beside Purvavideha are: first, Deha; second, Videha. The two beside Godaniya are: first, Shatha; second, Uttaramantrina. The two beside Kuru are: first, Kurava; second, Kaurava. All of these continents are inhabited by humans. Some say that one of them is inhabited only by rakshasas. The verse says:

此北九黑山，雪香醉山內，

North of this are nine black mountains; inside the Snow Mountains and the Fragrant Intoxicating Mountain,

無熱池縱廣，五十踰繕那。

there is the Lake without Heat, fifty yojanas in length and breadth.

論曰：此贍部洲從中向北，三處各有三重黑山。有大雪山在黑山北，大雪山北有香醉山。雪北香南有大池水，名無熱惱，出四大河：一殑伽河、二信度河、三徙多河、四縛芻河。無熱惱池縱廣正等，面各五十踰繕那量，八功德水盈滿其中，非得通人無由能至。於此池側有贍部林，樹形高大其果甘美，依此林故名贍部洲，或依此果以立洲號。復於何處置㮈落迦、大㮈落迦？何量有幾？頌曰：

The treatise says: In this Jambudvipa, going north from the middle, there are three black mountains in each of three places. The Great Snow Mountains lie north of the black mountains, and north of the Great Snow Mountains is the Fragrant Intoxicating Mountain. North of the snows and south of the fragrance there is a great lake called Anavatapta, the Lake without Heat and Affliction, from which four great rivers flow: first, the Ganga (Ganges); second, the Sindhu; third, the Sita; fourth, the Vaksu. The Lake without Heat is equal in length and breadth, each face fifty yojanas, and filled with water of eight virtues; no one can reach it without supernormal powers. Beside this lake is the Jambu forest, whose trees are tall and whose fruit is sweet; because of this forest the continent is named Jambudvipa, or the name of the continent is established from this fruit. Where, again, are the narakas and great narakas placed (in the original text, the character for "naraka" is a rare variant form)? What are their measures and how many are there? The verse says:

此下過二萬，無間深廣同，

Below this, past twenty thousand, is Avici, equal in depth and breadth,

上七㮈落迦，八增皆十六。

above it the seven narakas, each with eight additions, all sixteen in number.

謂煻煨屍糞，鋒刃烈河增，

They are the embers, the corpse-dung, the blades, and the fierce river as additions,

各住彼四方，餘八寒地獄。

each located at the four directions of that naraka; and there are the other eight cold hells.

論曰：此贍部洲下過二萬，有阿鼻旨大㮈落迦。深廣同前，謂各二萬故。彼底去此四萬踰繕那。以於其中受苦無間，非如餘七大㮈落迦受苦非恆，故名無間。且如等活㮈落迦中，諸有情身雖被種種斫刺磨擣，而彼暫遇涼風所吹還活如本，由斯理故立等活名。阿鼻旨中無如是事。有餘師說：阿鼻旨中無樂間苦故名無間，餘地獄中有樂間起，雖無異熟而有等流。七㮈落迦在無間上重累而住。其七者何？一者極熱、二者炎熱、三者大叫、四者號叫、五者眾合、六者黑繩、七者等活。有說：此七在無間傍。八㮈落迦增各十六，故薄伽梵說此頌言：

The treatise says: Below this Jambudvipa, past twenty thousand yojanas, is the great naraka Avici (uninterrupted). Its depth and breadth are as before, namely twenty thousand each. Its bottom is forty thousand yojanas from here. Because suffering in it is without interruption, unlike the other seven great narakas where suffering is not constant, it is called uninterrupted. For example, in the naraka of Revival, although the bodies of beings are variously hacked, stabbed, ground, and pounded, when they briefly meet a cool wind blowing they revive as before, and for this reason the name Revival is established. There is no such thing in Avici. Some other masters say: in Avici there is no pleasure interspersed with suffering, hence the name uninterrupted; in the other hells pleasure arises in between, though without being a result of maturation but only a flow of the same kind. The seven narakas lie piled up one above another over Avici. What are the seven? First, Tapana (extremely hot); second, Pratapana (blazing); third, Maharaurava (great wailing); fourth, Raurava (wailing); fifth, Samghata (crushing); sixth, Kalasutra (black rope); seventh, Samjiva (revival). Some say that these seven are beside Avici. Each of the eight narakas has sixteen additions, and so the Bhagavat spoke this verse:

此八㮈落迦，我說甚難越，

These eight narakas, I say, are very hard to cross;

以熱鐵為地，周匝有鐵牆，

the ground is of hot iron, with an iron wall all around,

四面有四門，關閉以鐵扇，

four gates on the four sides, closed with iron doors,

巧安布分量，各有十六增，

skillfully laid out in measure, each with sixteen additions,

多百踰繕那，滿中造惡者，

hundreds of yojanas in extent, filled with those who did evil,

周遍焰交徹，猛火恆洞然。

flames interpenetrating everywhere, fierce fire burning constantly through and through.

十六增者，八㮈落迦四面門外各有四所：一煻煨增，謂此增內煻煨沒膝，有情遊彼才下足時，皮肉與血俱燋爛墜，舉足還生平復如本。二屍糞增，謂此增內屍糞泥滿，於中多有娘矩吒蟲，𭪿利如針身白頭黑，有情遊彼皆為此蟲鑽皮破骨𠯗食其髓。三鋒刃增，謂此增內復有三種：一刀刃路，謂於此中仰布刀刃以為大道，有情遊彼才下足時，皮肉與血俱斷碎墜，舉足還生平復如本。二劍葉林，謂此林上純以銛利劍刃為葉，有情遊彼風吹葉墜，斬刺支體骨肉零落，有烏駁狗摣掣食之。三鐵刺林，謂此林上有利鐵刺長十六指，有情被逼上下樹時，其刺銛鋒下上鑱刺，有鐵𭪿鳥探啄有情眼睛心肝爭競而食。刀刃路等三種雖殊，而鐵杖同故一增攝。四烈河增，謂此增量廣，滿中熱醎水，有情入中或浮或沒，或逆或順或橫或轉，被蒸被煮骨肉糜爛。如大鑊中滿盛灰汁置麻米等，猛火下燃，麻等於中上下迴轉舉體糜爛，有情亦然。設欲逃亡，於兩岸上有諸獄卒，手執刀槍禦捍令迴，無由得出。此河如塹，前三似園，四面各四增，故言皆十六。此是增上被刑害所，故說名增，本地獄中適被害已重遭害故。有說：有情從地獄出更遭此苦，故說為增。今於此中因論生論。諸地獄卒是有情不？有說：非情。如何動作？有情業力，如成劫風。若爾，云何通彼大德法善現說？如彼頌言：

(The treatise continues:) The sixteen additions are as follows: outside the four gates of each of the eight narakas there are four places. First, the Embers addition: in this addition, hot embers reach up to the knee; when a being walks there, as soon as he sets down his foot, skin, flesh, and blood are all scorched and fall off, and when he lifts his foot they grow again and are restored as before. Second, the Corpse-Dung addition: this addition is full of corpse-dung mud, in which there are many nankuta worms, whose beaks are sharp as needles, whose bodies are white and heads black (in the original text the character for "beak" is a rare variant form); beings who walk there are bored into by these worms through skin and bone, and their marrow is eaten. Third, the Blades addition: this addition contains three kinds. First, the blade road, in which blades are laid face up as a great road; when a being walks there, as soon as he sets down his foot, skin, flesh, and blood are all cut to pieces and fall off, and when he lifts his foot they grow again and are restored as before. Second, the sword-leaf forest, a forest whose leaves are wholly of sharp sword blades; when beings walk there, wind blows the leaves down, hacking and stabbing their limbs so that bones and flesh fall in pieces, and spotted dogs with iron mouths seize and eat them. Third, the iron-thorn forest, a forest on which there are sharp iron thorns sixteen finger-breadths long; when beings, pressed on, climb up and down the trees, the thorns pierce them with sharp points going down and up, and birds with iron beaks peck at the beings' eyes, hearts, and livers and eat them in competition. Although the blade road and the other two differ, they are included in one addition because of the common iron staff. Fourth, the Fierce River addition: this addition is vast in extent and full of hot salty water; beings enter it and either float or sink, go against the current, with it, or across it, or turn over, being steamed and boiled until their bones and flesh are mashed. It is like a great cauldron filled with ash-water in which hemp and rice are placed, with fierce fire burning beneath, and the hemp and the rest turn up and down in it and are wholly mashed; beings are likewise. If they wish to flee, on the two banks there are prison guards who hold swords and spears to ward them off and make them turn back, so there is no way to get out. This river is like a moat, and the former three are like gardens; each of the four sides has four additions, and hence it is said to be sixteen in all. These are places of added suffering from punishment, and so they are called additions, since those who have just been harmed in the original hell are harmed again. Some say: beings who emerge from the hell suffer this pain again, and so it is called an addition. Here a question arises from this discussion. Are the hell guards sentient beings? Some say they are not sentient. How do they act, then? By the power of the karma of sentient beings, like the winds of the kalpa of formation. If so, how does this fit with what the Venerable Dharmasubhuti said? As his verse says:

心常懷忿毒，好集諸惡業，

With a mind constantly harboring anger and poison, fond of accumulating evil deeds,

見他苦欣悅，死作琰魔卒。

delighting in seeing others suffer, after death one becomes a soldier of Yama.

琰魔王使諸邏剎娑擲諸有情置地獄者名琰魔卒。是實有情非地獄中害有情者，故地獄卒非實有情。有說：有情。若爾，此惡業何處受異熟？即地獄中，以地獄中尚容無間所感異熟，此何理遮？若爾，何緣火不燒彼？此定由業力所隔礙故，或感異大種故不被燒。熱㮈落迦已說有八。復有餘八寒㮈落迦。其八者何？一頞部陀、二尼剌部陀、三頞唽吒、四臛臛婆、五虎虎婆、六嗢缽羅、七缽特摩、八摩訶缽特摩。此中有情嚴寒所逼，隨身聲變以立其名。此八並居贍部洲下，如前所說大地獄傍。此贍部洲其量無幾，下寧容受無間等耶？洲如穀聚，上尖下闊，是故大海漸陿漸深。如上所論十六地獄，一切有情增上業感。餘孤地獄各別業招，或多或二或一所止，差別多種、處所不定，或近江河山邊曠野，或在地下空及餘處。諸地獄器安布如是，本處在下、支𣲖不定。傍生住處謂水陸空，本處大海，後流餘處。諸鬼本處琰魔王國，於此贍部洲下過五百踰繕那有琰魔王國，縱廣量亦爾，從此展轉散居餘處。或有端嚴具大威德，受諸富樂自在如天，或有飢羸顏貌醜陋，如是等類廣說如經。日月所居量等義者，頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) Those rakshasas sent by King Yama to throw sentient beings into the hells are called Yama's soldiers. They are real sentient beings, not those who harm beings in the hells; therefore the hell guards are not real sentient beings. Some say they are sentient beings. If so, where do they experience the result of maturation of this evil karma? In the hells themselves, since in the hells even the result of maturation brought about by uninterrupted karma can be experienced; what principle prevents this? If so, why does fire not burn them? This is certainly because they are shielded by karma, or because they have been brought about with a different kind of great elements, and so they are not burned. The eight hot narakas have been described. There are also eight other cold narakas. What are the eight? First, Arbuda; second, Nirarbuda; third, Atata; fourth, Hahava; fifth, Huhuva; sixth, Utpala; seventh, Padma; eighth, Mahapadma. In these, beings are oppressed by severe cold, and their names are established from the sounds of their bodies as they change. These eight all lie below Jambudvipa, beside the great hells described above. This Jambudvipa is not large in measure; how can its underside hold Avici and the rest? The continent is like a heap of grain, pointed above and broad below, and so the great sea grows gradually narrower and deeper. As discussed above, the sixteen hells are brought about by the dominant karma of all sentient beings. The other isolated hells are brought about by individual karma, where one, two, or many dwell, with many kinds of differences and no fixed place, some near rivers, mountains, or wilderness, some underground, in the sky, or other places. The vessels of the hells are thus arranged: the main place is below, and the offshoots are not fixed (in the original text the character for "offshoots" is a rare variant form). The dwelling places of animals are water, land, and sky; their main place is the great ocean, and later they flow to other places. The main place of the hungry ghosts is the kingdom of King Yama, which lies below Jambudvipa past five hundred yojanas, with the same breadth and length, and from here they scatter to other places. Some are dignified and of great majestic power, enjoying wealth and pleasure with freedom like the devas, while some are hungry, emaciated, and ugly in appearance; such kinds are described at length in the sutras. As for the measures of the dwellings of sun and moon, the verse says:

日月迷盧半，五十一五十，

Sun and moon are at half of Sumeru; fifty-one and fifty,

夜半日沒中，日出四洲等。

when it is midnight, the sun sets, noon, the sun rises, in the four continents alike.

雨際第二月，後九夜漸增，

In the rainy season, the second month, after the ninth night, nights gradually lengthen;

寒第四亦然，夜減晝翻此。

the fourth month of the cold season is likewise; nights shorten and days lengthen in the opposite way.

晝夜增臘縛，行南北路時，

Day and night increase by a lava, as the sun goes on its south and north paths;

近日自影覆，故見月輪缺。

when near the sun, the moon is covered by its own shadow, and so the moon-disk is seen to wane.

論曰：日月眾星依何而住？依風而住。謂諸有情業增上力共引風起，繞妙高山空中旋環，運持日等令不停墜。彼所住去此幾踰繕那？持雙山頂齊妙高山半。日月徑量幾踰繕那？日五十一，月唯五十。星最小者唯一俱盧舍，其最大者十六踰繕那。日輪下面頗胝迦寶火珠所成，能熱能照；月輪下面頗胝迦寶水珠所成，能冷能照。隨有情業增上所生，能於眼身果花稼穡藥草等物，如其所應為益為損。唯一日月普於四洲作所作事、一日所作事為四洲同時不？不爾。云何？北洲夜半東洲日沒，南洲日中西洲日出。此四時等，餘例應知。日行此洲路有差別，故令晝夜有減有增。從雨際第二月後半第九日夜漸增，從寒際第四月後半第九日夜漸減，晝增減位與此相違。夜漸增時晝便漸減，夜若漸減晝則漸增。晝夜增時一晝夜增幾？增一臘縛。晝夜減亦然。日行此洲向南向北，如其次第夜增晝增。何故月輪於黑半末白半初位見有缺耶？世施設中作如是釋：以月宮殿行近日輪，月被日輪光所侵照，餘邊發影自覆月輪，令於爾時見不圓滿。先舊師釋：由日月輪行度不同現有圓缺。日等宮殿何有情居？四大天王所部天眾。是諸天眾唯住此耶？若空居天唯住如是日等宮殿，若地居天住妙高山諸層級等。有幾層級？其量云何？何等諸天住何層級？頌曰：

The treatise says: On what do the sun, moon, and stars rest? They rest on wind. By the dominant power of the karma of sentient beings, a wind is jointly drawn forth, which circles Mount Sumeru in the sky, carrying the sun and the rest so that they do not stop or fall. How many yojanas from here do they dwell? They are level with the half-height of Mount Sumeru, at the summit of Yugandhara. How many yojanas is the diameter of the sun and the moon? The sun is fifty-one, and the moon only fifty. The smallest star is only one krosha (the distance of an arrow's flight), and the largest is sixteen yojanas. Beneath the sun-disk is a fire-pearl made of crystal, which can heat and illuminate; beneath the moon-disk is a water-pearl made of crystal, which can cool and illuminate. Arising from the dominant karma of sentient beings, they can, as appropriate, benefit or harm the eyes, body, fruits, flowers, crops, medicinal herbs, and other things. Does a single sun and moon do their work across the four continents, and does the work of one day take place in the four continents at the same time? No. How is it, then? When it is midnight in the north continent, the sun sets in the east continent, it is noon in the south continent, and the sun rises in the west continent. As for these four times and so on, the others should be understood by analogy. The sun's path over this continent differs, and so it makes day and night shorten and lengthen. From the second month of the rainy season, after the ninth night of the second half, the nights gradually lengthen; from the fourth month of the cold season, after the ninth night of the second half, the nights gradually shorten; the increase and decrease of days are the opposite of this. As the nights gradually lengthen, the days gradually shorten; if the nights gradually shorten, the days gradually lengthen. When days and nights increase, how much does a day and night increase? It increases by one lava (a very short unit of time). The decrease of days and nights is likewise. As the sun travels toward the south or north of this continent, in order the nights increase or the days increase. Why is the moon-disk seen to be partly missing at the end of the dark fortnight and the beginning of the bright fortnight? In worldly accounts, this is explained thus: since the moon's palace moves near the sun-disk, the moon is struck by the light of the sun-disk, and its remaining edge casts a shadow that covers the moon-disk, so that at that time it is not seen to be full. The old masters explain: because the sun and moon disks move at different paces, they appear to be full or waning. What sentient beings dwell in the palaces of the sun and the rest? The devas under the Four Great Heavenly Kings. Do these devas dwell only here? The devas who dwell in the air live only in such palaces of the sun and the rest, while the devas who dwell on the ground live on the terraces of Mount Sumeru. How many terraces are there? What are their measures? Which devas live on which terrace? The verse says:

妙高層有四，相去各十千，

Sumeru has four terraces, each ten thousand apart,

傍出十六千，八四二千量。

projecting outward sixteen thousand, then eight, four, and two thousand.

堅手及持鬘，恆憍大王眾，

The Strong-handed, the Garland-bearers, the Ever-intoxicated, and the host of the Great Kings

如次居四級，亦住餘七山。

dwell in order on the four terraces, and also dwell on the other seven mountains.

論曰：蘇迷盧山有四層級，始從水際盡第一層相去十千踰繕那量，如是乃至從第三層盡第四層亦十千量。此四層級從妙高山傍出圍繞盡其下半，最初層級出十六千，第二、第三、第四層級，如其次第八、四、二千。有藥叉神名為堅手住初層級，有名持鬘住第二級，有名恆憍住第三級，此三皆是四大天王所部天眾，第四層級四大天王及諸眷屬共所居止故，經依此說四大王眾天。如妙高山四外層級四大王眾及眷屬居，如是持雙、持軸山等七金山上亦有天居，是四大王所部封邑，是名依地住四大王眾天。於欲天中此天最廣。三十三天住在何處？頌曰：

The treatise says: Mount Sumeru has four terraces. From the water's edge to the end of the first terrace is ten thousand yojanas, and likewise from the third terrace to the end of the fourth, ten thousand. These four terraces project outward from Mount Sumeru and encircle it, using up its lower half; the first terrace projects sixteen thousand, and the second, third, and fourth terraces, in order, eight, four, and two thousand. A yaksha named Strong-handed dwells on the first terrace, one named Garland-bearer on the second, and one named Ever-intoxicated on the third. These three are all devas under the Four Great Heavenly Kings. On the fourth terrace the Four Great Heavenly Kings and their retinues together dwell, and so the sutras speak of the devas of the Four Great Kings on this account. Just as the Four Great Kings and their retinues dwell on the four outer terraces of Mount Sumeru, devas also dwell on the seven golden mountains such as Yugandhara and Isadhara, which are the fiefs under the Four Great Kings; these are called the devas of the Four Great Kings who dwell on the ground. Among the desire-realm devas, these are the widest. Where do the Thirty-three Gods live? The verse says:

妙高頂八萬，三十三天居，

On the summit of Sumeru, eighty thousand wide, the Thirty-three Gods dwell,

四角有四峰，金剛手所住。

at the four corners are four peaks where Vajrapani dwells.

中宮名善見，周萬踰繕那，

The central palace is called Sudarshana, ten thousand yojanas around,

高一半金城，雜飾地柔軟。

with a golden city wall half as high, and a soft ground adorned with mixed jewels.

中有殊勝殿，周千踰繕那，

Within there is the Vaijayanta palace, a thousand yojanas around,

外四苑莊嚴，眾車麁雜喜。

outside it four parks adorn it: Caitraratha, Parushyaka, Mishraka, and Nandana.

妙池居四方，相去各二十，

Wonderful ponds lie in the four directions, each twenty yojanas apart,

東北圓生樹，西南善法堂。

in the northeast the Parijata tree, in the southwest the Hall of Good Dharma.

論曰：三十三天住迷盧頂，其頂四面各八十千，與下四邊其量無別。有餘師說：周八十千，別說四邊各唯二萬。山頂四角各有一峰，其高廣量各有五百。有藥叉神名金剛手，於中止住守護諸天。於山頂中有宮名善見，面二千半，周萬踰繕那，金城量高一踰繕那半，其地平坦亦真金所成，俱用百一雜寶嚴飾，地觸柔軟如妬羅綿，於踐躡時隨足高下，是天帝釋所都大城。於其城中有殊勝殿，種種妙寶具足莊嚴，蔽餘天宮故名殊勝，面二百五十，周千踰繕那。是謂城中諸可愛事。城外四面四苑莊嚴，是彼諸天共遊戲處：一眾車苑、二麁惡苑、三雜林苑、四喜林苑，此為外飾莊嚴大城。四苑四邊有四妙池，中間各去苑二十踰繕那，是彼諸天勝遊戲處，諸天於彼捔勝歡娛。城外東北有圓生樹，是三十三天受欲樂勝所。盤根深廣五十踰繕那，聳幹上昇枝條傍布，高廣量等百踰繕那，挺葉開花妙香芬馥，順風燻滿百踰繕那，若逆風時猶遍五十。順風可爾，云何逆燻？有餘師言：香無逆燻義，依不越樹界故說逆燻。理實圓生有如是德，所流香氣能逆風燻，雖天和風力所擁遏。然能相續流趣餘方，漸劣漸微近處便歇，非能遠至如順風燻。如是花香，為依自地隨風相續轉至餘方、為但燻風別生香氣？此義無定，諸軌範師於此二門俱許無失。若爾，何故薄伽梵言：

The treatise says: The Thirty-three Gods dwell on the summit of Sumeru; each of its four sides is eighty thousand, the same in measure as the four sides below. Some other masters say: the circumference is eighty thousand, and the four sides are said separately to be only twenty thousand each. At each of the four corners of the summit there is a peak, each five hundred in height and breadth. A yaksha named Vajrapani dwells there and guards the devas. In the middle of the summit is a palace called Sudarshana, twenty-five hundred on each face and ten thousand yojanas around, with a golden city wall one and a half yojanas high; its ground is flat, also made of pure gold, adorned with a hundred and one kinds of mixed jewels, and soft to the touch like tula cotton, yielding to the foot when trodden and rising and sinking with it; this is the great capital city of the deva Shakra. In the city there is an excellent palace, Vaijayanta, fully adorned with various fine jewels, called excellent because it eclipses the palaces of the other devas, two hundred fifty on each face and a thousand yojanas around. These are the lovable things within the city. Outside the city on the four sides are four adorned parks, where the devas play together: first, the Caitraratha park; second, the Parushyaka park; third, the Mishraka park; fourth, the Nandana park. These adorn the great city on the outside. On the four sides of the four parks are four wonderful ponds, each twenty yojanas from the park in between, where the devas play in excellence, and the devas there compete in strength and enjoy themselves. Outside the city to the northeast is the Parijata tree, the superior place where the Thirty-three Gods enjoy pleasures. Its coiled roots are fifty yojanas deep and wide, its trunk soars upward and its branches spread sideways, a hundred yojanas high and wide; its leaves stand and its flowers bloom with a wonderful fragrance, which with the wind fills a hundred yojanas, and against the wind still pervades fifty. With the wind this may be so, but how can it spread against it? Some other masters say: fragrance has no meaning of spreading against the wind, and it is said to spread against the wind according to not going beyond the tree's domain. In truth the Parijata has such virtue that the fragrance it emits can spread against the wind; although it is obstructed by the force of the gentle winds of the devas, it can still flow continuously toward other places, gradually weaker and fainter, and ceases near; it cannot reach far as when with the wind. Is this flower fragrance, relying on its own ground, carried on by the wind and continuing to turn to other places, or does it only perfume the wind and give rise to separate fragrance? This meaning is not fixed, and the teachers allow no fault in either alternative. If so, why did the Bhagavat say:

花香不能逆風燻，根莖等香亦復爾；

The fragrance of flowers cannot spread against the wind; so too the fragrance of roots, stems, and the like;

善士功德香芬馥，逆風流美遍諸方。

but the fragrance of the virtue of good people is rich, and flows against the wind, beautiful, to all directions.

據人間香故作是說，以世共了無如是能。化地部經說此香氣，順風燻滿百踰繕那，若無風時唯遍五十。外西南角有善法堂，三十三天時集於彼詳論如法不如法事。如是已辯三十三天所居外器，餘有色天眾所住器云何？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) It is said so on account of fragrance in the human world, since it is commonly understood that there is no such power. The sutra of the Mahishasakas says that this fragrance with the wind fills a hundred yojanas, and without wind pervades only fifty. At the outer southwest corner there is the Hall of Good Dharma, where the Thirty-three Gods gather at times to discuss in detail what is in accord and not in accord with the Dharma. Thus the dwelling vessels of the Thirty-three Gods have been explained; how about the vessels where the other devas with form dwell? The verse says:

此上有色天，住依空宮殿。

Above this are the devas with form, who dwell in palaces that rest in the sky.

論曰：此前所說三十三天上有色諸天，住依空宮殿。云何名上有色諸天？謂夜摩天、覩史多天、樂變化天、他化自在天。及前所說梵眾天等有十六處，並前合有二十二天，皆依外器。如是所說諸天眾中，頌曰：

The treatise says: Above the Thirty-three Gods mentioned before, the devas with form dwell in palaces that rest in the sky. Who are called the devas with form above? They are the Yama devas, the Tushita devas, the Nirmanarati devas, and the Paranirmitavashavartin devas. Together with the sixteen places such as the Brahma Assembly mentioned before, and the earlier ones, there are twenty-two heavens altogether, all resting on outer vessels. Among the groups of devas thus described, the verse says:

六受欲交抱，執手笑視婬。

The six enjoy desire through embracing, holding hands, laughing, and gazing in lust.

論曰：唯六慾天受妙欲境，於中初二依地居天，形交成婬與人無別。然風氣洩熱惱便除，非如人間有餘不淨。夜摩天眾才抱成婬，覩史多天但由執手，樂變化天唯相向笑，他化自在相視成婬。毘婆沙師作如是釋：六天皆以形交成婬。世施設中說相抱等，但為顯彼時量差別。以上諸天欲境轉妙、貪心轉捷故使之然。隨彼諸天男女膝上，有童男童女欻爾化生，即說為彼天所生男女。初生天眾身量云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Only the six desire-realm heavens enjoy the marvelous objects of desire. Among them, the first two, who dwell on the ground, accomplish lust through bodily union, no different from humans. However, when the wind and breath are released, heat and distress are removed, and there are no other impurities as in the human world. The Yama devas accomplish lust just by embracing, the Tushita devas only by holding hands, the Nirmanarati devas only by laughing at each other, and the Paranirmitavashavartin devas by gazing at each other. The Vaibhashika masters explain: all six heavens accomplish lust by bodily union; the embracing and so on described in worldly accounts are only to show the difference in time and measure. The objects of desire in the higher heavens become more marvelous and the mind of desire more swift, and so they are made thus. On the lap of such devas, male or female, a boy or girl suddenly appears by transformation, and is said to be born of that deva. What are the body sizes of newly born devas? The verse says:

初如五至十，色圓滿有衣。

At first like those of five up to ten, with complete form and clothing.

論曰：且六慾諸天初生，如次如五六七八九十歲人，生已身形速得成滿。色界天眾於初生時，身量周圓具妙衣服。一切天眾皆作聖言，謂彼言詞同中印度。欲樂生別云何應知？頌曰：

The treatise says: The newly born of the six desire heavens are, in order, like humans of five, six, seven, eight, nine, and ten years of age, and having been born their bodies quickly become complete. The devas of the form realm, at the moment of birth, have bodies of full size and are clothed in wonderful garments. All the devas speak the language of the noble ones, namely a language the same as that of Central India. How should the differences of birth through desire and through pleasure be known? The verse says:

欲生三人天，樂生三九處。

Birth through desire: three human and deva places; birth through pleasure: three, nine places.

論曰：欲生三者，有諸有情樂受現前諸妙欲境，彼於如是現欲境中自在而轉，謂全人趣及下四天。有諸有情樂受自化諸妙欲境，彼於自化妙欲境中自在而轉，謂唯第五樂變化天。有諸有情樂受他化諸妙欲境，彼於他化妙欲境中自在而轉，謂第六他化自在天。依受如生現前欲境故，依受如樂自化欲境故，依受如樂他化欲境故，於欲界中分別欲生差別三種。樂生三者，三靜慮中於九處生受三種樂，謂彼安住離生喜樂、定生喜樂，離喜樂故，長時安住、長時離苦、長時受樂，故名樂生。生靜慮中間都無喜樂應思，何故亦號樂生天？所說諸天二十二處，上下相去其量云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Regarding the three kinds of birth in desire: there are sentient beings who enjoy the excellent desirable objects that are present before them, and they exercise mastery over such present objects of desire, namely all of the human destiny and the four lower heavens. There are sentient beings who enjoy excellent desirable objects of their own creation, and they exercise mastery over the excellent objects of desire they create themselves, namely only the fifth heaven, the Nirmanarati heaven. There are sentient beings who enjoy excellent desirable objects created by others, and they exercise mastery over the excellent objects of desire created by others, namely the sixth heaven, the Paranirmitavashavartin heaven. Because they receive objects of desire as they are present, because they delight in objects of desire created by themselves, and because they delight in objects of desire created by others, the differences of birth in desire in the desire realm are distinguished into three kinds. As for the three kinds of birth in happiness: in the three dhyana grounds, in nine places one is born and receives three kinds of happiness, namely the joy and happiness born of separation, the joy and happiness born of concentration, and happiness separate from joy. Because they abide for a long time, are free of suffering for a long time and experience happiness for a long time, they are called birth in happiness. Given that between the dhyana grounds there is no joy or happiness to be considered, why are those heavens also called birth in happiness? Regarding the twenty-two places of the heavens just spoken of, how far apart are they above and below? The verse says:

如彼去下量，去上數亦然。

As the measure going down from there, so also is the number going up.

論曰：一一中間踰繕那量，非易可數，但可總舉彼去下量，去上例然。隨從何天去下海量，彼上所至與去下同。謂妙高山從第四層級去下大海四萬踰繕那，是四大王本所住處，從彼上去三十三天，亦如彼天去下海量。如三十三天去下大海，上去夜摩天其量亦爾。如是乃至如善見天去下大海踰繕那量，從彼上去色究竟天亦與彼天去下海等。從此向上無復所居，此處最高名色究竟。有餘師說：彼名礙究竟天。彼謂礙名目積集色至彼礙盡，得究竟名。於下處生昇見上不？頌曰：

The treatise says: The distances between each are measured in yojanas and are not easy to count, but one can generally state the measure going down from them, and going up is the same by analogy. From whichever heaven one goes down to the sea, the distance upward reached from there is the same as that going down. That is, from the fourth terrace of Mount Sumeru, going down to the great sea is forty thousand yojanas, which is the original dwelling place of the Four Great Kings; going up from there to the Heaven of the Thirty-Three is likewise the same as that heaven's distance going down to the sea. As the Heaven of the Thirty-Three goes down to the great sea, so going up to the Yama heaven is of the same measure. In this way, up to the Sudarshana heaven, going up from there to the Akanishtha heaven is likewise equal to that heaven's distance going down to the sea. Beyond this there is no further dwelling place, and this highest place is called Akanishtha. Other teachers say that it is called the Heaven of Obstruction's End: obstruction is the name for accumulated form, and when one reaches there obstruction ends, and so it gains the name of end. Can those born in lower places ascend and see the higher? The verse says:

離通力依他，下無昇見上。

Apart from supernormal power or relying on others, the lower cannot ascend to see the higher.

論曰：三十三天由自通力，能從本處昇夜摩天；或復依他，謂得通者及上天眾接往夜摩。所餘諸天昇上例爾，若來若至下見上天。然下眼不能覩上界上地，非其境界故。如不覺彼觸，是故從上地來下地時非自身來，要作下地化。有餘部說：彼下地天隨樂亦能見上地色，如生此界下見上天。夜摩等天宮依處量有幾？有餘師說：此上四天依處，量同妙高山頂。有餘師說：上倍倍增。有餘師言：初靜慮地宮殿依處等一四洲，第二靜慮等小千界，第三靜慮等中千界，第四靜慮等大千界。有餘師言：下三靜慮如次量等小中大千，第四靜慮量無邊際。齊何量說小中大千？頌曰：

The treatise says: The Heaven of the Thirty-Three can ascend from its own place to the Yama heaven by its own supernormal power; or relying on others, namely those who have obtained supernormal power and the host of higher gods, who take them to Yama. The remaining heavens ascending upward should be taken by analogy, whether coming or arriving, and the lower seeing the higher gods. However, the lower eye cannot see the higher realm and higher ground, since it is not its object, just as one does not sense their touch. Therefore, when coming from a higher ground to a lower ground, they do not come in their own bodies but must make a transformed body of the lower ground. Other schools say that the gods of the lower ground can also see forms of the higher ground at will, just as one born in this realm looks up and sees the gods above. How large are the dwelling places of the palaces of the Yama and other heavens? Some teachers say that the dwelling places of the four heavens above this are of the same size as the summit of Mount Sumeru. Other teachers say that going up they double and double. Other teachers say that the palace dwelling places of the first dhyana ground are equal to one world of four continents, those of the second dhyana to a small chiliocosm, of the third dhyana to a medium chiliocosm, and of the fourth dhyana to a great chiliocosm. Other teachers say that the lower three dhyanas are respectively equal to a small, medium and great chiliocosm, and that the fourth dhyana is of boundless measure. Up to what measure are the small, medium and great chiliocosms spoken of? The verse says:

四大洲日月，蘇迷盧欲天，

Four great continents, sun and moon, Mount Sumeru, the desire heavens,

梵世各一千，名一小千界；

and the Brahma world, each a thousand, are called a small chiliocosm;

此小千千倍，說名一中千；

a thousand times this small chiliocosm is called a medium chiliocosm,

此千倍大千，皆同一成壞。

a thousand times this is a great chiliocosm, all alike in formation and destruction.

論曰：千四大洲乃至梵世，如是總說為一小千，千倍小千名一中千界，千中千界總名一大千，如是大千同成同壞。同成壞相後當廣辯。如外器量別，身量亦別耶？亦別。云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: A thousand of the four great continents and so on up to the Brahma world are altogether called one small chiliocosm; a thousand small chiliocosms are called one medium chiliocosm world; and a thousand medium chiliocosm worlds are together called one great chiliocosm. Such a great chiliocosm forms together and is destroyed together. The characteristics of its common formation and destruction will be discussed at length later. Just as the measures of the external vessel world differ, do the measures of bodies also differ? They do. How? The verse says:

贍部洲人量，三肘半四肘；

The people of Jambudvipa measure three and a half or four cubits;

東西北洲人，倍倍增如次。

the people of the eastern, western and northern continents increase twofold in turn.

欲天俱盧舍，四分一一增；

The gods of the desire realm measure one quarter of a krosha, increasing by one quarter each;

色天踰繕那，初四增半半；

the gods of the form realm measure in yojanas, the first four increasing by half each;

此上增倍倍，唯無雲減三。

above this they double each time, only that Anabhraka decreases by three.

論曰：贍部洲人身多長三肘半，於中少分有長四肘。東勝身人身長八肘，西牛貨人長十六肘，北俱盧人三十二肘。欲界六天最下身量一俱盧舍四分之一，如是後後一一分增，至第六天身一俱盧舍半。色天身量初梵眾天半踰繕那，梵輔全一，大梵一半，少光二全，此上餘天皆增倍倍，唯無雲減三踰繕那，謂無量光天倍增二至四，乃至色究竟增滿萬六千。身量既殊，壽量別不？亦別。云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The people of Jambudvipa are mostly three and a half cubits tall, and a small portion of them are four cubits tall. The people of Purvavideha are eight cubits tall, the people of Aparagodaniya sixteen cubits, and the people of Uttarakuru thirty-two cubits. In the six heavens of the desire realm, the lowest has a body measure of one quarter of a krosha, and from there each succeeding heaven increases by one quarter, until the sixth heaven has a body of one and a half krosha. Among the form-realm gods, the Brahmakayika gods are half a yojana tall, the Brahmapurohita one full yojana, the Mahabrahma one and a half, and the Parittabha two full yojanas; above this the remaining gods double in turn, only that Anabhraka decreases by three yojanas. That is, the Apramanabha gods double, from two to four, and so on until Akanishtha increases to sixteen thousand in full. Since body measures differ, do lifespans also differ? They do. How? The verse says:

北洲定千年，西東半半減，

In the northern continent it is fixed at a thousand years, and in the west and east it decreases by half each,

此洲壽不定，後十初叵量。

in this continent lifespan is indefinite; the last is ten, and the first is immeasurable.

人間五十年，下天一晝夜，

Fifty years among humans is one day and night of the lowest heaven,

乘斯壽五百，上五倍倍增。

multiplying by this gives a lifespan of five hundred, and in the higher five heavens it doubles in turn.

色無晝夜殊，劫數等身量，

In the form realm there is no difference of day and night; eons are equal to body measure,

無色初二萬，後後二二增，

in the formless realm the first two are twenty thousand, and thereafter they increase by two each,

少光上下天，大全半為劫。

for the gods above and below Parittabha, a full or half great eon is the measure of an eon.

論曰：北俱盧人定壽千歲，西牛貨人壽五百歲，東勝身人壽二百五十歲，南贍部人壽無定限。劫減最後極壽十年，於劫初時人壽無量，百千等數不能計量。已說人間壽量長短。要先建立天上晝夜，方可算計天壽短長。天上云何建立晝夜？人五十歲為六天中最在下天一晝一夜，乘斯晝夜三十為月，十二月為歲，彼壽五百年。上五欲天漸俱增倍，謂人百歲為第二天一晝一夜，乘此晝夜成月及年彼壽千歲。夜摩等四隨次如人，二四八百千六百歲為一晝夜，乘此晝夜成月及年，如次彼壽二四八千萬六千歲。持雙以上日月並無，彼天云何建立晝夜及光明事？依何得成？依花開合建立晝夜，如拘物陀、缽特摩等。又依諸鳥鳴靜差別，或依天眾寤寐不同，依自身光明成外光明事。已說欲界天壽短長。色界天中無晝夜別，但以劫數知壽短長。彼劫壽短長與身量數等，謂若身量半踰繕那，壽量半劫；若彼身量一踰繕那，壽量一劫；乃至身量長萬六千，壽量亦同萬六千劫。已說色界天壽短長。無色四天從下如次壽量二四六八萬劫。上所說劫其量云何？為壞為成？為中為大？少光以上大全為劫，自下諸天大半為劫。即由此故，說大梵王過梵輔天壽一劫半。謂以成住壞各二十中劫，六十中劫為一劫半，故以大半四十中劫為下三天所壽劫量。已說善趣壽量短長。惡趣云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The people of Uttarakuru have a fixed lifespan of a thousand years, the people of Aparagodaniya live five hundred years, the people of Purvavideha live two hundred and fifty years, and the people of southern Jambudvipa have no fixed limit. In the last eon of decrease the maximum lifespan is ten years, and at the beginning of an eon human lifespan is immeasurable, reckoned in hundreds of thousands and so on, which cannot be counted. The length of human lifespans has been explained. One must first establish the day and night of the heavens before one can calculate the length of heavenly lifespans. How are day and night established in the heavens? Fifty human years are one day and night of the lowest of the six heavens; taking this day and night, thirty make a month and twelve months a year, and their lifespan is five hundred such years. In the five higher desire heavens they gradually double together: a hundred human years are one day and night of the second heaven, and taking these days and nights to form months and years, their lifespan is a thousand years. For the four heavens beginning with Yama, in turn like humans, two hundred, four hundred, eight hundred and a thousand six hundred years are one day and night, and taking these days and nights to form months and years, their lifespans are respectively two thousand, four thousand, eight thousand and sixteen thousand years. Above those who hold the double mountain there are neither sun nor moon; how do those heavens establish day and night and the matter of light? On what does it depend? Day and night are established according to the opening and closing of flowers, such as the kumuda and padma lotuses. They also rely on the differences between the singing and quiet of birds, or on the different waking and sleeping of the gods, and the matter of outer light is accomplished by the light of their own bodies. The length of lifespans of the desire-realm gods has been explained. In the form-realm heavens there is no distinction of day and night, and the length of lifespans is known only by the number of eons. The length of an eon of lifespan there equals the number of body measure: if the body measure is half a yojana, the lifespan is half an eon; if the body measure is one yojana, the lifespan is one eon; and so on until the body measure is sixteen thousand, and the lifespan is likewise sixteen thousand eons. The length of lifespans of the form-realm heavens has been explained. The four formless heavens have lifespans, from the lowest in order, of twenty thousand, forty thousand, sixty thousand and eighty thousand eons. What is the measure of the eons spoken of above? Are they eons of destruction, of formation, middle eons or great eons? For Parittabha and above, a full great eon is the eon; for the heavens below, a half great eon is the eon. For this very reason, it is said that the Mahabrahma king lives one and a half eons longer than the Brahmapurohita gods. That is, taking twenty middle eons each for formation, abiding and destruction, sixty middle eons make one and a half eons, and so a half great eon of forty middle eons is the measure of the eon for the lifespan of the lower three heavens. The length of lifespans in the good destinies has been explained. What of the evil destinies? The verse says:

等活等上六，如次以欲天，

From Sanjiva and the six above, in order, taking the desire heavens,

壽為一晝夜，壽量亦同彼。

their lifespans as one day and night, the lifespan is also the same as theirs.

極熱半中劫，無間中劫全，

In Pratapana it is half a middle eon, in Avici a full middle eon,

傍生極一中，鬼月日五百，

for animals at most one middle eon, for ghosts five hundred in months and days,

頞部陀壽量，如一婆訶麻，

the lifespan of Arbuda is like one cartload of sesame,

百年除一盡，後後倍二十。

removing one every hundred years until exhausted, and afterward twenty times more each.

論曰：四大王等六慾天壽，如其次第為等活等六㮈落迦一晝一夜，壽量如次亦同彼天。謂四大王壽量五百，於等活地獄為一晝一夜，乘此晝夜成月及年，以如是年彼壽五百。乃至他化壽萬六千，於炎熱地獄為一晝一夜，乘此晝夜成月及年，彼壽如斯萬六千歲。極熱地獄壽半中劫，無間地獄壽一中劫。傍生壽量多無定限，若壽極長亦一中劫，謂難陀等諸大龍王。故世尊言：大龍有八，皆住一劫能持大地。鬼以人間一月為一日，乘此成月歲壽五百年。寒那落迦云何壽量？世尊寄喻顯彼壽言：如此人間佉梨二十成摩揭陀國一麻婆訶量，有置巨勝平滿其中，設復有能百年除一。如是巨勝易有盡期，生頞部陀壽量難盡。此二十倍為第二壽，如是後後二十倍增，是謂八寒地獄壽量。此諸壽量有中夭耶？頌曰：

The treatise says: The lifespans of the six desire heavens beginning with the Four Great Kings are, in order, one day and night in the six hells beginning with Sanjiva, and the lifespans are in order the same as those of those heavens. That is, the lifespan of the Four Great Kings is five hundred years, which is one day and night in the Sanjiva hell; taking these days and nights to form months and years, their lifespan there is five hundred such years. And so on until the lifespan of the Paranirmitavashavartin gods, sixteen thousand years, is one day and night in the Tapana hell, and taking these days and nights to form months and years, their lifespan there is sixteen thousand such years. In the Pratapana hell the lifespan is half a middle eon, and in the Avici hell one middle eon. The lifespans of animals are mostly indefinite, but if the lifespan is extremely long it is also one middle eon, for example the great dragon kings such as Nanda. Therefore the World-Honored One said: There are eight great dragons, all of whom live for one eon and are able to support the great earth. For ghosts, one human month is one day, and taking these to make months and years, their lifespan is five hundred years. What of the lifespans in the cold hells? The World-Honored One used an analogy to show their lifespans, saying: Suppose twenty khari of this human world make one sesame cartload of Magadha, and it is filled level with sesame seeds, and suppose someone could remove one every hundred years. The sesame seeds would easily come to an end, but the lifespan of one born in Arbuda is hard to exhaust. Twenty times this is the second lifespan, and thus each subsequent one increases twenty times; these are the lifespans of the eight cold hells. Is there premature death among these lifespans? The verse says:

諸處有中夭，除北俱盧洲。

In all places there is premature death, except in the northern continent of Uttarakuru.

論曰：諸處壽量皆有中夭，唯北俱盧定壽千歲。此約處說，非別有情，有別有情不中夭故。謂住覩史多天一生所繫菩薩，及最後有佛記佛使隨信法行菩薩輪王，母懷彼二胎時，此等如應皆無中夭。

The treatise says: Lifespans in all places are subject to premature death; only in Uttarakuru is it fixed at a thousand years. This is said according to place and not of particular beings, since there are particular beings who do not die prematurely. That is, a Bodhisattva abiding in the Tushita heaven bound to only one more birth, the Bodhisattva in his last existence, the Buddha-predicted and Buddha-sent, those who follow faith and follow the Dharma, wheel-turning kings, and the mothers while they carry those two in the womb: all such as appropriate have no premature death.

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang by imperial order.

分別世品第三之五

Chapter 3 on the Analysis of the World, Part 5.

如是已約踰繕那等辯器世間身量差別。約年等辯壽量有殊，二量不同未說應說。此二建立無不依名，前二及名未詳極少，今應先辯三極少量。頌曰：

The differences in the bodily measures of the vessel world have now been explained by way of yojanas and the like, and the differences in lifespan by way of years and the like. The two kinds of measure are different, and what has not yet been said should be said. The establishment of both depends on names; the earlier two and the names have not been explained in detail as to their smallest units, so the three smallest measures should be discussed first. The verse says:

極微字剎那，色名時極少。

The atom, the syllable and the instant are the smallest of form, name and time.

論曰：分析諸色至一極微，故一極微為色極少。如是分析諸名及時至一字剎那，為名時極少。一字名者，如說瞿名。何等名為一剎那量？眾緣和合法得自體頃，或有動法行度一極微。對法諸師說：如壯士一疾彈指頃六十五剎那，如是名為一剎那量。已知三極少，前二量云何？今且辯前踰繕那等。頌曰：

The treatise says: Analyzing form down to a single atom, one atom is the smallest of form. Likewise, analyzing names and time down to a single syllable and an instant, these are the smallest of name and time. A one-syllable name is, for example, the word go. What is the measure of one instant? It is the moment in which a dharma obtains its own nature through the combination of conditions, or in which a moving dharma passes over one atom. The Abhidharma masters say: As the time of a strong man's swift snap of the fingers contains sixty-five instants, so this is called the measure of one instant. Having known the three smallest units, what of the first two measures? Let us first discuss the earlier ones, the yojana and so on. The verse says:

極微微金水，兔羊牛隙塵，

Atom, fine dust, gold, water, rabbit, sheep, ox, sunbeam dust,

蟣蝨麥指節，後後增七倍，

nit, louse, barley, finger joint, each seven times the one before,

二十四指肘，四肘為弓量，

twenty-four finger widths make a cubit, and four cubits are a bow's measure,

五百俱盧舍，此八踰繕那。

five hundred krosha, and eight of these make a yojana.

論曰：極微為初，指節為後，應知後後皆七倍增。謂七極微為一微量，積微至七為一金塵，積七金塵為水塵量，水塵積至七為一兔毛塵，積七兔毛塵為羊毛塵量，積羊毛塵七為一牛毛塵，積七牛毛塵為隙遊塵量，隙塵七為蟣，七蟣為一蝨，七蝨為穬麥，七麥為指節，三節為一指。世所極成，是故於頌中不別分別。二十四指橫布為肘，竪積四肘為弓謂尋，竪積五百弓為一俱盧舍，一俱盧舍許是從村至阿練若中間道量。說八俱盧舍為一踰繕那。如是已說踰繕那等。今當辯後年等量別。頌曰：

The treatise says: With the atom first and the finger joint last, it should be known that each is seven times the one before. That is, seven atoms make one fine dust, seven fine dusts make one gold dust, seven gold dusts make a water dust, seven water dusts make one rabbit-hair dust, seven rabbit-hair dusts make a sheep-hair dust, seven sheep-hair dusts make one ox-hair dust, seven ox-hair dusts make a sunbeam dust, seven sunbeam dusts make a nit, seven nits make one louse, seven lice make one barleycorn, seven barleycorns make a finger joint, and three joints make one finger width. This is accepted in the world and is therefore not analyzed separately in the verse. Twenty-four finger widths laid side by side make a cubit, and four cubits stacked make a bow, called a fathom; five hundred bows stacked make one krosha, and one krosha is admitted to be the distance of the road from a village to an aranya (a quiet place in the wilds). Eight krosha are said to make one yojana. The yojana and so on have now been explained. The later measures of years and the like will now be discussed. The verse says:

百二十剎那，為怛剎那量，

One hundred and twenty instants make one tatksana,

臘縛此六十，此三十須臾，

sixty of these make one lava, thirty of these make one muhurta,

此三十晝夜，三十晝夜月，

thirty of these make a day and night, thirty days and nights a month,

十二月為年，於中半減夜。

twelve months make a year, in which the night decreases by half.

論曰：剎那百二十為一怛剎那，六十怛剎那為一臘縛，三十臘縛為一牟呼栗多，三十牟呼栗多為一晝夜。此晝夜有時增、有時減、有時等。三十晝夜為一月，總十二月為一年。於一年中分為三際，謂寒、熱、雨各有四月。十二月中六月減夜，以一年內夜總減六。云何如是？故有頌言：

The treatise says: One hundred and twenty instants make one tatksana, sixty tatksana make one lava, thirty lava make one muhurta, and thirty muhurta make one day and night. This day and night is sometimes increasing, sometimes decreasing and sometimes equal. Thirty days and nights make a month, and twelve months in all make a year. The year is divided into three seasons, namely cold, hot and rainy, each with four months. Of the twelve months, six months have decreasing nights, so that over the year the night decreases by six in total. How is this? Therefore a verse says:

寒熱雨際中，一月半已度，

In the cold, hot and rainy seasons, when a month and a half has passed,

於所餘半月，智者知夜減。

in the remaining half month, the wise know that the night decreases.

如是已辯剎那至年。劫量不同，今次當辯。頌曰：

The measures from the instant to the year have now been explained. The measures of eons differ, and will be discussed next. The verse says:

應知有四劫，謂壞成中大，

It should be known that there are four eons: destruction, formation, middle and great;

壞從獄不生，至外器都盡，

destruction runs from no more birth in hell until the outer vessel world is entirely gone,

成劫從風起，至地獄初生，

formation runs from the rising of wind until the first birth in hell,

中劫從無量，減至壽唯十，

a middle eon runs from immeasurable lifespan decreasing until lifespan is only ten,

次增減十八，後增至八萬，

then increasing and decreasing eighteen times, and finally increasing to eighty thousand,

如是成已住，名中二十劫，

thus once formed and abiding, it is called twenty middle eons,

成壞壞已空，時皆等住劫，

formation, destruction and the emptiness after destruction are all equal in time to the abiding eon,

八十中大劫，大劫三無數。

eighty middle eons make a great eon, and three incalculable great eons.

論曰：言壞劫者，謂從地獄有情不復生至外器都盡。壞有二種：一趣壞、二界壞。復有二種：一有情壞、二外器壞。謂此世間過於二十中劫住已，從此復有等住二十，壞劫便至。若時地獄有情命終無復新生，為壞劫始。乃至地獄無一有情，爾時名為地獄已壞。諸有地獄定受業者，業力引置他方獄中，由此準知傍生鬼趣。然各先壞本處住者，人天雜居者與人天同壞。若時人趣此洲一人，無師法然得初靜慮，從靜慮起唱如是言：離生喜樂，甚樂甚靜。餘人聞已皆入靜慮，命終並得生梵世中。乃至此洲有情都盡，是名已壞贍部洲人。東西二洲例此應說。北洲命盡生欲界天，由彼無能入定離欲。乃至人趣無一有情，爾時名為人趣已壞。若時天趣四大王天隨一法然得初靜慮，乃至並得生梵世中。爾時彼天有情都盡，是名已壞大王眾天。餘五欲天例同此說。乃至欲界無一有情，名欲界中有情已壞。若時梵世隨一有情，無師法然得二靜慮，從彼定起唱如是言：定生喜樂，甚樂甚靜。餘天聞已皆入彼靜慮，命終並得生極光淨天。乃至梵世中有情都盡，如是名已壞有情世間。唯器世間空曠而住。餘十方界一切有情，感此三千世界業盡，於此漸有七日輪現，諸海乾竭眾山洞然，洲渚三輪並從焚燎，風吹猛焰燒上天宮，乃至梵宮無遺灰燼。自地火焰燒自地宮，非他地災能壞他地，由相引起故作是言。下火風飄焚燒上地，謂欲界火猛焰上昇為緣引生色界火焰。餘災亦爾，如應當知。如是始從地獄漸減乃至器盡，總名壞劫。所言成劫，謂從風起乃至地獄始有情生。謂此世間災所壞已，二十中劫唯有虛空，過此長時次應復有等住二十，成劫便至。一切有情業增上力，空中漸有微細風生，是器世間將成前相。風漸增盛，成立如前所說風輪水金輪等，然初成立大梵王宮乃至夜摩宮。後起風輪等，是謂成立外器世間。

The treatise says: The eon of destruction runs from the point at which sentient beings are no longer born in hell until the outer vessel world is entirely gone. Destruction is of two kinds: destruction of destinies and destruction of realms. It is also of two kinds: destruction of sentient beings and destruction of the vessel world. That is, when this world has abided for twenty middle eons, from then there are another twenty of equal duration, and the eon of destruction arrives. When sentient beings who die in hell are no longer newly born, that is the beginning of the eon of destruction. Until there is not one sentient being in the hells, that is called the hells having been destroyed. As for those in the hells who are certain to receive their karma, the power of their karma places them in hells of other regions; from this animals and ghosts can be inferred. However, those who dwell in their own original places are destroyed there first, and those living mixed with humans and gods are destroyed along with humans and gods. When a person in this continent among the human destiny, without a teacher, naturally attains the first dhyana, and rising from the dhyana proclaims: Joy and happiness born of separation are most happy and most tranquil, other people hear this and all enter dhyana, and on dying are all born in the Brahma world. Until the sentient beings of this continent are entirely gone, this is called Jambudvipa's people having been destroyed. The eastern and western continents should be described by analogy. The northern continent's people die and are born in the desire heavens, since they cannot enter concentration and detach from desire. Until there is not one sentient being in the human destiny, that is called the human destiny having been destroyed. When any one of the heavens of the Four Great Kings naturally attains the first dhyana, and so on until all are born in the Brahma world, at that time the sentient beings of that heaven are entirely gone, and this is called the host of the Great Kings having been destroyed. The other five desire heavens are described by analogy. Until there is not one sentient being in the desire realm, it is called the sentient beings in the desire realm having been destroyed. When any one sentient being in the Brahma world, without a teacher, naturally attains the second dhyana, and rising from that concentration proclaims: Joy and happiness born of concentration are most happy and most tranquil, the other gods hear this and all enter that dhyana, and on dying are all born in the Abhasvara heaven. Until the sentient beings in the Brahma world are entirely gone, this is called the world of sentient beings having been destroyed. Only the vessel world remains, empty and vast. For all sentient beings in the other ten directions, when the karma that produces this trichiliocosm is exhausted, seven suns gradually appear here, the seas dry up, the mountains burn, the continents and the three wheels are all burned, and fierce flames blown by wind burn the heavenly palaces above, until the Brahma palaces are left without even ashes. The flames of one's own ground burn the palaces of one's own ground, and it is not that the calamity of another ground destroys another ground; this is said because they induce one another to arise. The lower fire and wind blow and burn the higher grounds; that is, the fierce flames of the desire realm rise up and are the condition that gives rise to the flames of the form realm. The other calamities should be understood likewise as appropriate. All this, beginning with the gradual decrease from the hells until the vessel world is exhausted, is together called the eon of destruction. The eon of formation, as it is called, runs from the arising of wind until the first birth of sentient beings in hell. That is, after this world has been destroyed by calamity, for twenty middle eons there is only space; after this long time, another twenty of equal duration should come, and the eon of formation arrives. By the dominant power of the karma of all sentient beings, subtle winds gradually arise in space, which are the prior signs that the vessel world is about to form. As the wind gradually grows stronger, the wind wheel, water wheel, gold wheel and so on described earlier are established, but first the palace of the Mahabrahma king and so on up to the Yama palaces are established. Afterward the wind wheel and the others arise; this is called the establishment of the external vessel world.

初一有情極光淨歿，生大梵處為大梵王。後諸有情亦從彼歿，有生梵輔、有生梵眾、有生他化自在天宮。漸漸下生，乃至人趣俱盧、牛貨、勝身、贍部，後生餓鬼、傍生、地獄。法爾後壞，必最初成。若初一有情生無間獄二十中成劫應知已滿，此後復有二十中劫名成已住，次第而起，謂從風起造器世間，乃至後時有情漸住。此洲人壽經無量時，至住劫初壽方漸減。從無量減至極十年即名為初一住中劫，此後十八皆有增減，謂從十年增至八萬，復從八萬減至十年，爾乃名為第二中劫。次後十七例皆如是。於十八後，從十歲增極至八萬歲，名第二十劫。一切劫增無過八萬，一切劫減唯極十年。十八劫中一增一減，時量方等，初減後增故二十劫時量皆等。此總名為成已住劫。所餘成壞及壞已空，並無減增二十差別，然由時量與住劫同，準住各成二十中劫。成中初劫起器世間，後十九中有情漸住。壞中後劫減器世間，前十九中有情漸捨。如是所說成住壞空，各二十中積成八十，總此八十成大劫量。劫性是何？謂唯五蘊。經說三劫阿僧企耶精進修行方得成佛。於前所說四種劫中，積何劫成三劫無數？累前大劫為十百千，乃至積成三劫無數。既稱無數，何復言三？非無數言，顯不可數。《解脫經》說六十數中，阿僧企耶是其一數。云何六十？

(The treatise continues:) The first sentient being passes away from Abhasvara and is born in the place of Mahabrahma as the Mahabrahma king. Later sentient beings also pass away from there, some being born as Brahmapurohita, some as Brahmakayika, and some in the palaces of the Paranirmitavashavartin gods. They are gradually born lower, down to the human destiny in Kuru, Godaniya, Videha and Jambu, and later as hungry ghosts, animals and hell beings. What is destroyed last is by nature formed first. When the first sentient being is born in the Avici hell, it should be known that the twenty middle eons of formation have been completed. After this there are another twenty middle eons called abiding after formation, which arise in sequence, namely from the arising of wind building the vessel world, until later sentient beings gradually come to dwell. The lifespan of people in this continent lasts for an immeasurable time, and only at the beginning of the abiding eon does it gradually decrease. The decrease from immeasurable to the extreme of ten years is called the first middle eon of abiding. After this there are eighteen in which there is increase and decrease, that is, increasing from ten years to eighty thousand and then decreasing from eighty thousand back to ten, and only this is called the second middle eon. The following seventeen are all like this. After the eighteen, the increase from ten years to the extreme of eighty thousand years is called the twentieth eon. In all eons the increase does not exceed eighty thousand, and in all eons the decrease reaches only ten years at most. In the eighteen eons, one increase and one decrease make equal measures of time, and because the first is a decrease and the last an increase, all twenty eons are equal in duration. This is together called the eon of abiding after formation. The remaining formation, destruction and emptiness after destruction have no such twenty differences of increase and decrease, but since their measure of time is the same as the abiding eon, they are each taken as twenty middle eons by analogy with abiding. In the first middle eon of formation, the vessel world arises, and in the later nineteen, sentient beings gradually come to dwell. In the last middle eon of destruction the vessel world decreases, and in the earlier nineteen sentient beings gradually leave. Thus formation, abiding, destruction and emptiness, each of twenty middle eons, add up to eighty, and these eighty together make the measure of a great eon. What is the nature of an eon? It is only the five aggregates. The sutras say that one must diligently practice for three incalculable (asamkhyeya) eons to attain Buddhahood. Among the four kinds of eons mentioned above, which are accumulated to make three incalculable eons? Great eons are accumulated by tens, hundreds and thousands, until they form three incalculable eons. Since it is called incalculable, why is it said to be three? The word incalculable does not mean that it cannot be counted. The Moksha Sutra says that among the sixty numbers, asamkhyeya is one number. How are there sixty?

如彼經言：有一無餘數始為一，一十為十，十十為百，十百為千，十千為萬，十萬為洛叉，十洛叉為度洛叉，十度洛叉為俱胝，十俱胝為末陀，十末陀為阿庾多，十阿庾多為大阿庾多，十大阿庾多為那庾多，十那庾多為大那庾多，十大那庾多為缽羅庾多，十缽羅庾多為大缽羅庾多，十大缽羅庾多為矜羯羅，十矜羯羅為大矜羯羅，十大矜羯羅為頻跋羅，十頻跋羅為大頻跋羅，十大頻跋羅為阿芻婆，十阿芻婆為大阿芻婆，十大阿芻婆為毘婆訶，十毘婆訶為大毘婆訶，十大毘婆訶為嗢蹭伽，十嗢蹭伽為大嗢蹭伽，十大嗢蹭伽為婆喝那，十婆喝那為大婆喝那，十大婆喝那為地致婆，十地致婆為大地致婆，十大地致婆為醯都，十醯都為大醯都，十大醯都為羯臘婆，十羯臘婆為大羯臘婆，十大羯臘婆為印達羅，十印達羅為大印達羅，十大印達羅為三磨缽耽，十三磨缽耽為大三磨缽耽，十大三磨缽耽為揭底，十揭底為大揭底，十大揭底為拈筏羅闍，十拈筏羅闍為大拈筏羅闍，十大拈筏羅闍為姥達羅，十姥達羅為大姥達羅，十大姥達羅為跋藍，十跋藍為大跋藍，十大跋藍為珊若，十珊若為大珊若，十大珊若為毘步多，十毘步多為大毘步多，十大毘步多為跋邏攙，十跋邏攙為大跋邏攙，十大跋邏攙為阿僧企耶。於此數中忘失餘八，若數大劫至此數中阿僧企耶名劫無數。此劫無數復積至三，經中說為三劫無數。非諸算計，不能數知，故得說為三劫無數。何緣菩薩發願長時精進修行方期佛果？如何不許願長時修？無上菩提甚難可得，非多願行無容得成。菩薩要經三劫無數修大福德智慧資糧六波羅蜜多，多百千苦行方證無上正等菩提，是故定應發長時願。若餘方便亦得涅槃，何用為菩提久修多苦行？為欲利樂一切有情，故求菩提發長時願：云何令我具大堪能，於苦瀑流濟諸含識，故捨涅槃道求無上菩提。濟他有情於己何益？

(The treatise continues:) As that sutra says: one with nothing left over is the start of counting and is called one; ten ones make ten; ten tens make a hundred; ten hundreds make a thousand; ten thousands make a myriad; ten myriads make a laksha; ten lakshas make a dulaksha; ten dulakshas make a koti; ten kotis make a madha; ten madhas make an ayuta; ten ayutas make a great ayuta; ten great ayutas make a nayuta; ten nayutas make a great nayuta; ten great nayutas make a prayuta; ten prayutas make a great prayuta; ten great prayutas make a kimkara; ten kimkaras make a great kimkara; ten great kimkaras make a bimbara; ten bimbaras make a great bimbara; ten great bimbaras make an akshobha; ten akshobhas make a great akshobha; ten great akshobhas make a vivaha; ten vivahas make a great vivaha; ten great vivahas make an utsanga; ten utsangas make a great utsanga; ten great utsangas make a vahana; ten vahanas make a great vahana; ten great vahanas make a dityava; ten dityavas make a great dityava; ten great dityavas make a hetu; ten hetus make a great hetu; ten great hetus make a karabha; ten karabhas make a great karabha; ten great karabhas make an indra; ten indras make a great indra; ten great indras make a samapta; ten samaptas make a great samapta; ten great samaptas make a gati; ten gatis make a great gati; ten great gatis make a nimbarajas; ten nimbarajases make a great nimbarajas; ten great nimbarajases make a mudra; ten mudras make a great mudra; ten great mudras make a bhalla; ten bhallas make a great bhalla; ten great bhallas make a sanjna; ten sanjnas make a great sanjna; ten great sanjnas make a vibhuta; ten vibhutas make a great vibhuta; ten great vibhutas make a balakshan; ten balakshans make a great balakshan; ten great balakshans make an asamkhyeya. Eight of the remaining terms in this sequence have been forgotten; if one counts great kalpas up to the asamkhyeya in this sequence, it is called an incalculable kalpa. When this incalculable kalpa is accumulated up to three, the sutras call it three incalculable kalpas. It is not that they cannot be counted by any reckoning; they are said to be "three incalculable kalpas" only because they are so vast that ordinary counting cannot know them. Why does a Bodhisattva vow to practice diligently for such a long time before hoping for the fruit of Buddhahood? Why is it not permitted to vow to practice for a long time? Unsurpassed bodhi is very hard to attain, and without many vows and practices it cannot be achieved. A Bodhisattva must pass three incalculable kalpas cultivating the provisions of great merit and wisdom and the six paramitas, with hundreds of thousands of ascetic practices, and only then realizes unsurpassed, perfect and universal enlightenment; this is why he is bound to make a vow of long duration. If nirvana can also be attained by other expedient means, what is the use of long cultivation and many ascetic practices for the sake of bodhi? It is out of the wish to benefit and bring happiness to all sentient beings that he seeks bodhi and makes a vow of long duration: "How can I be made fully capable, so that in the torrent of suffering I may rescue all living beings?" Therefore he gives up the path of nirvana and seeks unsurpassed bodhi. What benefit does rescuing other sentient beings bring to oneself?

菩薩濟物遂己悲心，故以濟他即為己益。誰信菩薩有如是事？有懷潤己無大慈悲，於如是有情，此事實難信。無心潤己有大慈悲，於如是有情，此事非難信。如有久習無哀愍者，雖無益己而樂損他，世所同悉。如是菩薩久習慈悲，雖無利己而樂他益，如何不信？又如有情由數習力，於無我行不了有為，執以為我而生愛著，由此為因甘負眾苦，智者同悉。如是菩薩數習力故，捨自我愛增戀他心，由此為因甘負眾苦，如何不信？又由種姓異，有此志願起，以他苦為己苦、用他樂為己樂，不以自苦樂為己苦樂事，不見異益他而別有自益。依如是義故，有頌言：

(The treatise continues:) For a Bodhisattva, saving beings fulfills his own compassionate heart, and so helping others is itself his own benefit. Who would believe that a Bodhisattva has such a thing? When someone who cherishes self-benefit and lacks great compassion is the kind of being in question, this is truly hard to believe. When someone who has no thought of self-benefit and has great compassion is the kind of being in question, this is not hard to believe. Take those who have long practiced the absence of pity: even where there is no benefit to themselves they delight in harming others, which everyone in the world knows. In the same way, a Bodhisattva who has long practiced compassion delights in the benefit of others even without gain for himself; how can this be disbelieved? Again, sentient beings, through the power of repeated habit, fail to understand conditioned practice as having no self, cling to it as a self, and give rise to love and attachment; and for this reason they willingly bear many sufferings, as the wise all know. In the same way, a Bodhisattva, through the power of repeated cultivation, lets go of love for himself and increases his affection for others, and for this reason willingly bears many sufferings; how can this be disbelieved? Moreover, because of differences of lineage, such a vow arises: he takes others' suffering as his own suffering and others' happiness as his own happiness, does not regard his own suffering or happiness as his own suffering or happiness, and does not see any benefit to himself apart from benefiting others. On the basis of this meaning, there is a verse:

下士勤方便，恆求自身樂，

The inferior person strives with skillful means, always seeking his own happiness;

中士求滅苦，非樂苦依故，

the middling person seeks the ending of suffering, because happiness rests on suffering;

上士恆勤求，自苦他安樂，

the superior person always strives to seek, from his own suffering, the peace and happiness of others,

及他苦永滅，以他為己故。

and the eternal end of others' suffering, because he takes others as himself.

如是已辯劫量差別。諸佛獨覺出現世間，為劫增時、為劫減位？頌曰：

Thus the differences in the measure of kalpas have been explained. When Buddhas and Pratyekabuddhas appear in the world, is it during a kalpa of increase or a stage of decrease? The verse says:

減八萬至百，諸佛現世間，

In decrease from eighty thousand years to a hundred, Buddhas appear in the world;

獨覺增減時，麟角喻百劫。

Pratyekabuddhas appear in both increase and decrease; the rhinoceros-horn type needs a hundred kalpas.

論曰：從此洲人壽八萬歲，漸減乃至壽極百年，於此中間諸佛出現。何緣增位無佛出耶？有情樂增難教厭故。何緣減百無佛出耶？五濁極增難可化故。言五濁者：一壽濁、二劫濁、三煩惱濁、四見濁、五有情濁。劫減將末，壽等鄙下如滓穢故，說名為濁。由前二濁，如其次第，壽命資具極被衰損。由次二濁，善品衰損，以耽欲樂自苦行故，或損在家出家善故。由後一濁衰損自身，謂壞自身身量色力念智勤勇及無病故。獨覺出現通劫增減。然諸獨覺有二種殊：一者部行、二麟角喻。部行獨覺先是聲聞，得勝果時轉名獨勝。有餘說彼先是異生，曾修聲聞順決擇分，今自證道得獨勝名。由本事中說：一山處總有五百苦行外仙。有一獼猴曾與獨覺相近而住，見彼威儀，展轉遊行至外仙所，現先所見獨覺威儀。諸仙覩之鹹生敬慕，須臾皆證獨覺菩提。若先是聖人，不應修苦行，麟角喻者謂必獨居。二獨覺中麟角喻者，要百大劫修菩提資糧，然後方成麟角喻獨覺。言獨覺者，謂現身中離稟至教唯自悟道，以能自調不調他故。何緣獨覺言不調他？非彼無能演說正法，以彼亦得無礙解故，又能憶念過去所聞諸佛所宣聖教理故。又不可說彼無慈悲，為攝有情現神通故。又不可說無受法機，爾時有情亦有能起世間離欲對治道故。雖有此理，由彼宿習少欣樂勝解無說希望故。又知有情難受深法，以順流既久難令逆流故。又避攝眾故，不為他宣說正法，怖諠雜故。輪王出世為在何時？幾種幾俱何威何相？頌曰：

The treatise says: From the time when people of this continent live eighty thousand years, gradually decreasing until the life span is at its shortest, a hundred years, Buddhas appear in this interval. Why do no Buddhas appear in the stage of increase? Because sentient beings take delight in increase and are hard to teach to feel weariness. Why do none appear when it has decreased to a hundred? Because the five turbidities are at their height and beings are hard to transform. The five turbidities are: first, the turbidity of life span; second, the turbidity of the kalpa; third, the turbidity of afflictions; fourth, the turbidity of views; fifth, the turbidity of sentient beings. As the kalpa decreases and approaches its end, life span and the rest become base like dregs and filth, and so they are called turbidities. Because of the first two turbidities, in order, life span and the necessities of life are greatly impaired. Because of the next two turbidities, wholesome qualities are impaired, since people indulge in sensual pleasures or in self-torturing practices, or because the good deeds of householders and renunciants are damaged. Because of the last turbidity one's own body is impaired, that is, because one's bodily stature, appearance, strength, memory, wisdom, diligence, courage and freedom from illness are ruined. Pratyekabuddhas appear throughout both increase and decrease of the kalpa. However, Pratyekabuddhas are of two kinds: first, those who live in groups, and second, those likened to the rhinoceros horn. The group-dwelling Pratyekabuddhas were formerly Sravakas, and when they attain a superior fruit they are renamed solitary conquerors. Others say that they were formerly ordinary beings who had cultivated the stages leading to penetration that accord with the Sravaka path, and now by self-realization of the path they receive the name of solitary conquerors. As the Jataka-type accounts say: on a certain mountain there were altogether five hundred ascetic non-Buddhist sages. A monkey who had once lived near a Pratyekabuddha saw his deportment, and wandering from place to place came to where the sages were and imitated the Pratyekabuddha's deportment that he had seen. The sages, seeing it, all felt reverence and admiration, and in a short time all of them realized Pratyekabuddha bodhi. If one was formerly a noble one, he ought not to practice austerities; the rhinoceros-horn type is bound to live alone. Of the two kinds of Pratyekabuddhas, the rhinoceros-horn type must cultivate the provisions of bodhi for a hundred great kalpas before becoming a rhinoceros-horn Pratyekabuddha. As for what is meant by Pratyekabuddha: in the present life, apart from receiving the holy teaching from another, he awakens to the path on his own; since he can tame himself but does not tame others, he is so called. Why is it said that a Pratyekabuddha does not tame others? It is not that he is unable to expound the true Dharma, since he too has attained unobstructed understanding, and also because he can remember the holy teachings proclaimed by Buddhas that he heard in the past. Nor can it be said that he lacks compassion, because he shows spiritual powers to gather in sentient beings. Nor can it be said that there are no beings capable of receiving the Dharma, since at that time there are also beings who can generate the worldly path of counteracting and detaching from desire. Although this reasoning holds, it is because of his former habits that he takes little delight in higher understanding and has no wish to teach. Also, he knows that beings find it hard to accept profound teachings, since having followed the stream for so long they are hard to turn against the current. Moreover, he avoids gathering a following, so he does not proclaim the true Dharma to others, being afraid of noise and crowding. When a wheel-turning king appears in the world, at what time is it? How many kinds are there, how many appear together, and with what power and what marks? The verse says:

輪王八萬上，金銀銅鐵輪，

A wheel-turning king appears above eighty thousand years, with wheels of gold, silver, copper and iron,

一二三四洲，逆次獨如佛。

ruling one, two, three or four continents in reverse order, and appearing singly like a Buddha.

他迎自往伏，諍陣勝無害，

Others come to welcome him, or he goes himself to subdue; by contention, by battle formation, he conquers without harm;

相不正圓明，故與佛非等。

his marks are not upright, round and bright, and so he is not equal to a Buddha.

論曰：從此洲人壽無量歲乃至八萬歲，有轉輪王生。減八萬時，有情富樂壽量損減、眾惡漸盛，非大人器，故無輪王。此王由輪旋轉應導威伏一切，名轉輪王。《施設足》中說有四種，金、銀、銅、鐵輪應別故。如其次第勝、上、中、下，逆次能王領一二三四洲，謂鐵輪王王一洲界，銅輪王二，銀輪王三，若金輪王王四洲界。契經就勝但說金輪，故契經言：若王生在剎帝利種紹灑頂位，於十五日受齋戒時，沐浴首身受勝齋戒，昇高臺殿臣僚輔翼，東方忽有金輪寶現。其輪千輻具足轂輞，眾相圓淨如巧匠成，舒妙光明來應王所。此王定是轉金輪王。轉餘輪王應知亦爾。輪王如佛，無二俱生，故契經言：無處無位非前非後有二如來、應、正等覺出現於世，有處有位唯一如來。如說如來，輪王亦爾。應審思擇，此唯一言，為據一三千、為約一切界？有說：餘界定無佛生。所以者何？勿薄伽梵功能有礙，唯一世尊普於十方能教化故。若有一處一佛於中無教化能，餘亦應爾。又世尊告舍利子言：設復有人來至汝所，問言：頗有梵志沙門，正於今時與喬答摩氏平等平等得無上覺耶？汝得彼問當云何答？時舍利子白世尊言：我得彼問當如是答：今時無有梵志沙門得無上菩提與我世尊等。所以然者，我從世尊親聞親持，無處無位非前非後有二如來應正等覺出現於世，有處有位唯一如來。若爾，何緣《梵王經》說：我今於此三千大千諸世界中得自在轉？彼有密意。密意者何？謂若世尊不起加行，唯能觀此三千大千；若時世尊發起加行，無邊世界皆佛眼境。天耳通等例此應知。有餘部師說：餘世界亦別有佛出現世間。所以者何？有多菩薩現俱修習菩提資糧，一界一時可無多佛，多界多佛何理能遮？故無邊界中有無邊佛現。若唯一佛，設住一劫時，尚不遍為一世界佛事，況同人壽能益無邊。

The treatise says: From the time when people of this continent live for immeasurable years down to eighty thousand years, wheel-turning kings are born. When the life span has decreased below eighty thousand years, beings are wealthy and happy but their life spans have shortened and many evils increase; they are not vessels for great persons, and so there is no wheel-turning king. This king, by the revolving of a wheel, rightly leads and by his might subdues everyone, and is therefore called a wheel-turning king. The Sheshi Zu (Prajnaptipada) says that there are four kinds, because the wheels of gold, silver, copper and iron differ. In order they are supreme, superior, middling and lowest, and in reverse order they are able to rule one, two, three or four continents: that is, an iron-wheel king rules one continent, a copper-wheel king two, a silver-wheel king three, and a gold-wheel king rules all four continents. The sutras, speaking of the supreme one, mention only the gold wheel, and so the sutra says: When a king is born in the Kshatriya caste and has succeeded to the rank of anointed king, on the fifteenth day when he observes the fast, he bathes his head and body and takes the supreme fast; ascending a high terrace-palace with his ministers and attendants about him, suddenly in the east a golden wheel-treasure appears. The wheel has a thousand spokes, with hub and rim complete, its marks round and pure as if made by a skilled craftsman, and it spreads wonderful light and comes to the king. This king is certainly a gold-wheel-turning king. It should be understood that the other wheel-turning kings are the same. A wheel-turning king is like a Buddha in that there are not two born together; therefore the sutra says: It is impossible, there is no occasion, for two Tathagatas, Arhats, perfectly and universally enlightened ones, to appear in the world one before and one after; there is an occasion for only one Tathagata. As it is said of the Tathagata, so it is of the wheel-turning king. One should consider carefully: does this word "only one" refer to one three-thousandfold world or to all worlds? Some say that no Buddha is born in other worlds. Why? So that the Bhagavat's power should not be obstructed, since the single World-Honored One can teach everywhere in the ten directions. If in some place a Buddha had no power to teach, the same would be true of other places. Also the World-Honored One said to Sariputra: Suppose someone came to you and asked: Is there any brahmin or ascetic who at this very time is equal and equal to Gautama in attaining unsurpassed awakening? How would you answer when you were asked this? Then Sariputra said to the World-Honored One: If I were asked, I would answer thus: At present there is no brahmin or ascetic who has attained unsurpassed bodhi equal to my World-Honored One. Why is this so? Because I myself heard and received from the World-Honored One that it is impossible, there is no occasion, for two Tathagatas, Arhats, perfectly and universally enlightened ones, to appear in the world one before and one after; there is an occasion for only one Tathagata. If so, why does the Sutra of the Brahma King say: In these three thousand great thousand worlds I now turn freely? That has a hidden meaning. What is the hidden meaning? It is that if the World-Honored One does not make an effort he can observe only these three thousand great thousand worlds; when the World-Honored One does make an effort, boundless worlds are the realm of the Buddha-eye. The divine ear and other powers should be understood by analogy. Other schools say that in other worlds also there are separate Buddhas who appear in the world. Why? Because there are many Bodhisattvas now cultivating together the provisions of bodhi; in one world at one time there may not be many Buddhas, but what reason can prevent many Buddhas in many worlds? Therefore in boundless worlds there are boundless Buddhas appearing. If there were only one Buddha, even if he lived for a whole kalpa, he could not even finish the Buddha-work for one world, how much less benefit boundless worlds with a human life span.

然諸有情居無邊界，時處根性差別無邊，佛應遍觀此有情類。如是時處應見世尊，佛便應機現通說法，令其過失未生不生，諸有已生能令斷滅，令其功德未生得生，諸有已生能令圓滿。如何一佛此事頓成？是故同時定有多佛。然彼所引，無處無位非前非後有二如來出於世等。應共思擇，此言為說一界多界？若說多界，則轉輪王餘世界中亦應非有，以說如佛遮俱生故。若許輪王餘界別有，如何不許別界佛耶？佛出世間具吉祥福，多界多佛何過而遮？謂多界中諸佛俱現，便能饒益無量有情，令得增上生及決定勝道。若爾，何故一世界中無二如來俱時出現？以無用故。謂一界中一佛，足能饒益一切。又願力故，謂諸如來為菩薩時先發誓願：願我當在無救無依盲闇界中成等正覺，利益安樂一切有情，為救為依為眼為導。又令敬重故，謂一界中唯有一如來便深敬重。又令速行故，謂令如是知一切智尊甚為難遇，彼所立教應速修行，勿般涅槃或往餘處，便令我等無救無依。故一界中無二佛現。如是所說四種輪王，威定諸方亦有差別。謂金輪者，諸小國王各自來迎作如是請：我等國土寬廣豐饒，安隱富樂多諸人眾。唯願天尊親垂教勅，我等皆是天尊翼從。若銀輪王自往彼土，威嚴近至彼方臣伏。若銅輪王至彼國已，宣威競德彼方推勝。若鐵輪王亦至彼國，現威列陣剋勝便止。一切輪王皆無傷害，令伏得勝已，各安其所居，勸化令修十善業道，故輪王死定得生天。經說輪王出現於世，便有七寶出現世間。其七者何？一者輪寶、二者象寶、三者馬寶、四者珠寶、五者女寶、六者主藏臣寶、七者主兵臣寶。象等五寶有情數攝，如何他業生他有情，非他有情從他業起？然由先造互相屬業，於中若一稟自業生，餘亦俱時乘自業起。如是所說諸轉輪王，非唯有七寶與餘王別，亦有三十二大士相殊。若爾，輪王與佛何異？

(The treatise continues:) However, sentient beings dwell in boundless worlds, and the differences of time, place and capacity are boundless; the Buddha ought to observe all these kinds of beings everywhere. At such times and places the World-Honored One ought to be seen, and the Buddha then responds to the occasion with spiritual powers and teaching, so that faults not yet arisen do not arise, those already arisen can be cut off, and merits not yet arisen may arise, and those already arisen can be perfected. How could a single Buddha accomplish this all at once? Therefore at the same time there are certainly many Buddhas. As for what they cited, that there is no occasion for two Tathagatas to appear in the world one before and one after, and so forth, this should be examined together: does that statement refer to one world or to many worlds? If it refers to many worlds, then wheel-turning kings should also not exist in other worlds, since the sutra says "like a Buddha" in denying that two are born together. If one allows that wheel-turning kings exist separately in other worlds, why not allow separate Buddhas in other worlds? The appearance of a Buddha in the world brings auspicious blessings; what fault is there in many Buddhas in many worlds that it should be denied? That is to say, if Buddhas in many worlds appear together, they can benefit immeasurable beings and bring them higher rebirth and the sure supreme path. If so, why do two Tathagatas not appear together in one world? Because it would be of no use. In one world a single Buddha is enough to benefit everyone. Also because of the power of vows: when the Tathagatas were Bodhisattvas they first made a vow: "May I attain perfect enlightenment in a world without savior or refuge, blind and dark, to benefit and give happiness to all sentient beings, to be their savior, their refuge, their eye and their guide." Also to make people revere him: if in one world there is only one Tathagata, he is held in deep reverence. Also to make them practice quickly: it makes them know that the Honored One of omniscience is very hard to meet, that they should quickly practice the teaching he established, and that they should not let him enter parinirvana or go elsewhere, which would leave us without savior or refuge. Therefore in one world there do not appear two Buddhas. As for the four kinds of wheel-turning kings spoken of, they also differ in how they establish authority over the regions. The gold-wheel king: the petty kings each come to welcome him with this request: "Our lands are broad and abundant, secure, rich and happy, with many people. We only wish that the Honored of Heaven personally bestow instruction; we are all your attendants." The silver-wheel king goes personally to their land, and by his majesty, when he draws near, the ministers there submit. The copper-wheel king, having arrived in their country, proclaims his might and contends in virtue, and the other side yields to his superiority. The iron-wheel king also goes to their country, shows his might and draws up his troops, and stops once he has won. No wheel-turning king does harm; after bringing about submission and victory, each leaves them to dwell in their own places, and urges and transforms them to practice the ten wholesome paths of action, and so a wheel-turning king at death is sure to be reborn in heaven. The sutra says that when a wheel-turning king appears in the world, seven treasures appear in the world. What are the seven? The first is the wheel treasure, the second the elephant treasure, the third the horse treasure, the fourth the jewel treasure, the fifth the woman treasure, the sixth the treasurer-minister treasure, and the seventh the general-minister treasure. The five treasures such as the elephant are counted among sentient beings; how can others' karma give birth to other sentient beings, when it is not the case that other sentient beings arise from others' karma? But because of mutually related karma previously created, if one of them is born by his own karma, the others also arise at the same time by their own karma. The wheel-turning kings so described are distinguished from other kings not only by the seven treasures, but also by the difference in the thirty-two marks of a great person. If so, how do wheel-turning kings differ from Buddhas?

佛大士相處正明圓，王相不然，故有差別。劫初人眾為有王無？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) The marks of a great person in a Buddha are upright, perfect and bright; the marks of a king are not so, and therefore there is a difference. In the beginning of the kalpa, did human beings have a king or not? The verse says:

劫初如色天，後漸增貪味，

At the beginning of the kalpa they were like the gods of the form realm; later they gradually increased in greed for flavor;

由墮貯賊起，為防僱守田。

from falling into storing up, thieves arose; to guard against them, they hired someone to watch the fields.

論曰：劫初時人皆如色界，故契經說：劫初時人有色意成，支體圓滿諸根無缺，形色端嚴身帶光明，騰空自在飲食喜樂長壽久住。有如是類地味漸生，其味甘美其香欝馥。時有一人稟性耽味，嗅香起愛取甞便食，餘人隨學競取食之。爾時方名初受段食。資段食故身漸堅重，光明隱沒黑闇便生，日月眾星從茲出現。由漸耽味地味便隱，從斯復有地皮餅生。競耽食之，地餅復隱，爾時復有林藤出現。競耽食故，林藤復隱，有非耕種香稻自生，眾共取之以充所食。此食麁故，殘穢在身，為欲蠲除便生二道，因斯遂有男女根生。由二根殊形相亦異，宿習力故便相瞻視，因此遂生非理作意，欲貪鬼魅惑亂身心，失意猖狂行非梵行。人中欲鬼初發此時。爾時諸人隨食早晚隨取香稻無所貯積，後時有人稟性嬾惰，長取香稻貯擬後食，餘人隨學漸多停貯。由此於稻生我所心，各縱貪情多收無厭，故隨收處無復再生，遂共分田慮防遠盡。於己田分生悋護心，於他分田有懷侵奪，劫盜過起始於此時。為欲遮防共聚詳議，銓量眾內一有德人，各以所收六分之一，僱令防護封為田主，因斯故立剎帝利名。大眾欽承恩流率土，故復名大三末多王，自後諸王此王為首。時人或有情厭居家，樂在空閑精修戒行，因斯故得婆羅門名。後時有王貪悋財物，不能均給國土人民，故貧匱人多行賊事。王為禁止行輕重罰，為殺害業始於此時。時有罪人心怖刑罰，覆藏其過異想發言，虛誑語生此時為首。於劫減位有小三災。其相云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: At the beginning of the kalpa, people were all like beings of the form realm, and so the sutra says: At the beginning of the kalpa, people had bodies made of mind and having form, with limbs complete and faculties without defect, their forms dignified and their bodies radiant, who flew freely through the air, took joy and delight as their food, and lived long. Then a kind of earth-flavor gradually arose, whose taste was sweet and whose fragrance was rich. At that time a certain person, by nature fond of flavor, smelled the fragrance, felt desire, took some and tasted it, and then ate; the others, following his example, competed to take and eat it. Only then did they first receive coarse, solid food. Because they were nourished by solid food, their bodies gradually became heavy and firm, their radiance vanished and darkness arose, and the sun, moon and stars appeared from then on. Because they gradually grew fond of the flavor, the earth-flavor hid itself, and after that a cake of earth skin arose. They competed in being fond of eating it, and the earth cake again hid itself; at that time forest vines appeared. Because they competed in being fond of eating, the forest vines again hid themselves, and there grew by itself, without plowing or sowing, fragrant rice, which they all took together to fill their food. Because this food was coarse, residue and waste remained in the body, and in order to get rid of it two passages arose, and from this the male and female organs came to exist. Because the two organs differ, their forms also differed, and because of the power of former habit they looked at one another, and from this improper thoughts arose; demons of desire and greed bewitched and confused their bodies and minds, they lost their composure and ran wild, and performed non-celibate acts. Among humans, the demon of desire first arose at this time. At that time people took fragrant rice according to whether they ate early or late, taking it as they needed and storing nothing. Later a certain person, by nature lazy, took a large amount of fragrant rice and stored it for later meals, and the others, following his example, gradually stored more. Because of this a sense of "mine" arose toward the rice, and each indulged his greed, taking more without satiety, so that where it was reaped it no longer grew again. They then divided the fields among themselves, worried that supplies would run out far in the future. Toward their own fields they felt a miserly urge to guard, and toward the fields of others they felt an urge to encroach; the fault of robbery began at this time. To prevent it, they gathered together to deliberate, chose from among the crowd one man of virtue, and each gave him a sixth of what he harvested, hiring him to protect them and making him lord of the fields; hence the name Kshatriya was established. The multitude honored him and his favor flowed over the land, and so he was also called the Great Samata king (the king agreed on by all), and after him the later kings take this king as their head. Among the people at that time some grew weary of household life, took delight in solitude, and cultivated moral conduct; for this reason they obtained the name Brahmin. Later there was a king who was greedy and miserly for wealth and could not distribute it equally among the people of his land, so the poor and needy became many and often turned to theft. The king, to prohibit this, imposed lighter and heavier punishments, and the act of killing and harming began at this time. At that time guilty persons, fearing punishment in their hearts, covered up their faults and spoke with different intentions; false speech first arose at this time. In the stage of decrease of the kalpa there are the three lesser calamities. What are their characteristics? The verse says:

業道增壽減，至十三災現，

When the paths of action increase, life span decreases; at ten years the calamities appear;

刀疾飢如次，七日月年止。

sword, disease and famine in order, ending after seven days, seven months and seven years.

論曰：從諸有情起虛誑語，諸惡業道後後轉增，故此洲人壽量漸減，乃至極十小三災現。故諸災患二法為本：一耽美食、二性嬾惰。此小三災中劫末起。三災者，一刀兵、二疾疫、三飢饉。謂中劫末十歲時，人為非法貪染汙相續，不平等愛映蔽其心，邪法縈纏瞋毒增上，相見便起猛利害心。如今獵師見野禽獸，隨手所執皆成利刀，各逞兇狂互相殘害。又中劫末十歲時人，由具如前諸過失故，非人吐毒疾疫流行，遇輒命終難可救療。又中劫末十歲時人，亦具如前諸過失故，天龍忿責不降甘雨，由是世間久遭飢饉，既無支濟多分命終。是故說言，由飢饉故便有聚集白骨運籌。由二種因名有聚集：一人聚集，謂彼時人由極飢羸聚集而死。二種聚集，謂彼時人為益後人，輟其所食置於小篋擬為種子。故飢饉時名有聚集。言有白骨亦由二因：一彼時人身形枯燥，命終未久白骨便現。二彼時人飢饉所逼，聚集白骨煎汁飲之。有運籌言亦二因故，一由糧少行籌食之，謂一家中從長至幼，隨籌至日得少麁飡。二謂以籌挑故場蘊，得少穀粒多用水煎，分共飲之以濟餘命。然有至教說治彼方，謂若有能一晝一夜持不殺戒，於未來生決定不逢刀兵災起。若能以一訶梨怛雞，起殷淨心奉施僧眾，於當來世決定不逢疾疫災起。若有能以一摶之食，起殷淨心奉施僧眾，於當來世決定不逢飢饉災起。此三災起各經幾時？刀兵災起極唯七日，疾疫災起七月七日，飢饉七年七月七日，度此便止。人壽漸增，東西二洲有似災起，謂瞋增盛身力羸劣，數加飢渴，北洲總無。前說火災焚燒世界，餘災亦爾，如應當知。何者為餘？今當具辯。頌曰：

The treatise says: Since sentient beings arose to false speech, all evil paths of action increase more and more, and so the life span of the people of this continent gradually decreases, until at its lowest, ten years, the three lesser calamities appear. Thus these calamities have two causes as their root: first, fondness for fine food; second, a lazy nature. These three lesser calamities arise at the end of a middle kalpa. The three are: first, swords and weapons; second, pestilence and disease; third, famine. When it is the end of a middle kalpa and people are ten years old, they act against the Dharma, are continually stained by greed, unequal love obscures their minds, perverse doctrines entangle them and the poison of hatred grows strong, and on seeing one another they at once give rise to fierce murderous thoughts. Just as hunters now, on seeing wild birds and beasts, find whatever they grasp turns into a sharp blade, so each gives vent to fury and they kill and harm one another. Again, at the end of a middle kalpa when people are ten years old, because they possess all the faults described before, non-human beings spit poison and pestilence spreads, and those who meet it die at once and are hard to cure. Again, at the end of a middle kalpa when people are ten years old, because they too possess all the faults described before, the gods and dragons are angered and do not send sweet rain, and so the world suffers famine for a long time, and having no support most of them die. For this reason it is said that, because of famine, there is a gathering of white bones and a counting by tallies. It is called a gathering for two reasons: first, a gathering of people, namely at that time people, being extremely hungry and emaciated, gather together and die; second, a gathering of seed, namely at that time people, to benefit those who come after, set aside part of their food, put it in a small box and keep it as seed. Therefore the time of famine is called a time of gathering. White bones are mentioned also for two reasons: first, the bodies of people at that time are withered and dry, and soon after death white bones appear; second, people at that time, driven by hunger, gather white bones and boil them to drink the broth. The mention of counting by tallies has two reasons as well: first, because grain is scarce, tallies are used to distribute food, that is, in one household from the eldest to the youngest, whenever the tally comes round, each gets a small coarse meal; second, they pick over the old threshing floor with tallies, get a few grains of grain, boil them with a great deal of water, and share and drink it to sustain what remains of their lives. However, there is a holy teaching that tells how to cure these. It says: if anyone can keep the precept of not killing for one day and one night, in future births he will surely not meet the calamity of swords. If anyone, with a sincere and pure mind, offers a single haritaki fruit (myrobalan) to the Sangha, in a future life he will surely not meet the calamity of pestilence. If anyone, with a sincere and pure mind, offers a single handful of food to the Sangha, in a future life he will surely not meet the calamity of famine. How long does each of these three calamities last? The calamity of swords lasts at most seven days; the calamity of pestilence, seven months and seven days; famine, seven years, seven months and seven days, after which it stops. As human life span gradually increases, the two continents of east and west have similar calamities, namely, hatred grows strong, bodily strength weakens, and hunger and thirst are frequent; the northern continent has none at all. The fire calamity described before burns the world, and the other calamities are likewise; this should be understood as appropriate. What are the others? Now I will explain them fully. The verse says:

三災火水風，上三定為頂，

The three calamities are fire, water and wind; the three upper ones are definitely their summits,

如次內災等，四無不動故，

corresponding in order to inner calamities and so on; the fourth is unmoved because it has none,

然彼器非常，情俱生滅故，

yet its vessel-world is impermanent, because it arises and perishes together with sentient beings;

要七火一水，七水火後風。

there must be seven fires and then one flood; after seven floods and fires, the wind.

論曰：此大三災逼有情類，令捨下地集上天中。初火災興由七日現，次水災起由雨霖淫，後風災生由風相擊。此三災力壞器世間，乃至極微亦無餘在。一類外道執極微常，彼謂爾時餘極微在。何緣彼執猶有餘極微？勿後麁事生無種子故。豈不前說，由諸有情業所生風能為種子。或此即以前災頂風為緣、引生風為種子。又化地部契經中言：風從他方飄種來此。雖爾，不許芽等生時是種等因親所引起。若爾，芽等從何而生？從自分生。如是自分復從自分，展轉乃至最細有分從極微生。於芽等生中，種等有何力？除能引集芽等極微，種等更無生芽等力。何緣定作如是執耶？從異類生定不應理。不應何理？應無定故。功能定故，無不定失。如聲熟變等，從異類定生。德法有殊，實法不爾。現見實法唯從同類生，如藤生枝及縷生衣等。此非應理，非理者何？引不極成為能立故。今此所引何不極成？非許藤枝縷衣別故。即藤縷合，安布不同得枝衣名，如蟻行等。云何知爾？一縷閤中曾不得衣，唯得縷故。有誰為障令不得衣？若一縷中無全衣轉，則應一縷上有衣分無衣。應許全衣唯集諸分，非更別有有分名衣。又如何知衣分異縷？若謂衣要待多所依合，於唯多經合應亦得衣。或應畢竟無得衣理，中及餘邊不對根故。若謂漸次皆可對根，則應眼身唯得諸分，不應說彼得有分衣故，即於諸分漸次了別，總起有分覺，如旋火輪。謂若離縷異色類業，衣色等三不可得故。若錦衣上色等屬衣，則應許實從異類起，一一縷色等無種種異故。或於一分無異色等，邊應不見衣，由彼顯衣故。或即彼分應見異色等，以衣必有異色等相故。彼許有分體唯是一，而有種種色類業殊，審有如斯甚為靈異。又於一火光明界中，遠近不同燒照有異，觸色差別應不得成。各別極微雖越根境，而共聚集可現根證，如彼所宗合能生果，或如眼等合能發識。

The treatise says: These three great calamities press upon sentient beings and make them abandon the lower realms and gather in the upper heavens. The first, the fire calamity, arises through the appearance of seven suns; the next, the flood calamity, arises through continuous rain; the last, the wind calamity, arises through winds striking one another. The power of these three calamities destroys the vessel-world, until not even a single atom remains elsewhere. A certain non-Buddhist school holds that atoms are permanent, and says that at that time the other atoms remain. Why do they maintain that other atoms still remain? So that coarse things should not later arise without a seed. But have we not said before that the wind produced by the karma of sentient beings can serve as a seed? Or this may be that the wind at the summit of the previous calamity serves as the condition and draws forth the wind that serves as the seed. Again, the sutra of the Mahisasaka school says: wind carries seeds from another region to here. Even so, it is not admitted that when a sprout and the like come into being, the seed and the like is the direct cause that brings it about. If so, from what do sprouts and the like arise? They arise from their own parts. Thus its own parts arise again from its own parts, in turn, down to the finest possessors of parts arising from atoms. In the arising of a sprout and so on, what power does the seed have? Apart from gathering the atoms that form the sprout and so on, the seed and the like have no other power to produce a sprout. Why do they insist on this view? Because it is not reasonable that something arises from a different kind. What is not reasonable about it? That it would be indeterminate. Because function is determinate, there is no fault of indeterminacy. Like sound, ripening and transformation and so on, which arise determinately from a different kind. Qualities are special, but substances are not so. We see directly that substances arise only from their own kind, as a vine produces branches or threads produce cloth. This is not reasonable. What is unreasonable about it? It cites something not accepted by both sides as grounds for proof. What is cited here that is not accepted by both sides? We do not accept that vine and branch, or thread and cloth, are different things. A vine or threads combined, arranged differently, receive the names branch or cloth, like ants in a line. How do we know this is so? Because in a single thread combined, we never find cloth, only thread. Who prevents us from finding cloth? If in one thread there is no whole cloth present, then in one thread there would be a part of cloth but no cloth. One must admit that the whole cloth is merely a collection of its parts, and that there is no separate possessor of parts called cloth. Further, how do we know that the parts of the cloth differ from the threads? If you say that cloth must wait for the combination of many supports, then even in a combination of just many warp threads, cloth ought to be obtained. Or else there ought to be no way at all to obtain cloth, since the middle and the other ends would not face the sense faculty. If you say that they can face the faculty successively, then the eye and body would perceive only parts, and it could not be said that they perceive the cloth as a possessor of parts; rather, by distinguishing the parts successively, they give rise to a total notion of a whole, like a whirling fire-wheel. That is to say, if apart from the activity of the different kinds of color of the threads, the three, color and so on of the cloth, cannot be found. If on a brocade the color and so on belong to the cloth, then one must admit that a substance arises from a different kind, because the color and so on of each single thread has no variety. Or else where a single part has no different color and so on, the cloth would not be seen at the edges, since it is by those that the cloth is shown. Or else those same parts ought to be seen to have different colors, since cloth must have the mark of different colors. They hold that the possessor of parts has a single substance and yet displays many kinds of color and activity; truly examined, such a thing would be most strange. Again, within the light of a single fire, burning and illuminating differ by near and far, and so differences of touch and color could not be established. Individual atoms, though beyond the range of the senses, when gathered together can be present to the faculty, as in their own doctrine that combination can produce a result, or as the eye and the like, combined, produce consciousness.

又如瞖目視散髮時，若多相隣彼則能見，一一遠住便無見能。極微對根理亦應爾。又即於色等，立極微名故。色等壞時極微亦壞，極微實攝，色等德收，異體不應定俱時滅。此二體別，理必不然。以審觀時非離色等有別地等，故非體別。又彼宗中自許地等眼身所取，寧異色觸？又燒毛㲲紅花等時，彼覺則無，故毛等覺但緣色等差別而起，熟變生時形量等故。猶如行伍記識瓶盆，若不觀形不記識故。誰當採錄愚類狂言？故對彼宗廣諍應止。此三災頂為在何處？第二靜慮為火災頂，此下為火所焚燒故。第三靜慮為水災頂，此下為水所浸爛故。第四靜慮為風災頂，此下為風所飄散故。隨何災上，名彼災頂。何緣下三定遭火水風災？初二三定中，內災等彼故。謂初靜慮尋伺為內災，能燒惱心等，外火災故。第二靜慮喜受為內災，與輕安俱潤，身如水故，遍身麁重由此皆除故，經說苦根第二靜慮滅。第三靜慮動息為內災，息亦是風等，外風災故。若入此靜慮，有如是內災，生此靜慮時，遭是外災壞。何緣不立地亦為災？以器世間即是地故，但可火等與地相違，不可說言地還違地。第四靜慮何為外災？彼無外災，離內災故。由此佛說彼名不動，內外三災所不及故。有說：彼地有淨居天故，彼不遭諸災所壞。由彼不可生無色天，亦復不應更往餘處。若爾，彼地器應是常。不爾，與有情俱生俱滅故。謂彼天處無總地形，但如眾星居處各別。有情於彼生時死時，所住天宮隨起隨滅，是故彼器體亦非常。所說三災云何次第？要先無間起七火災，其次定應一水災起。此後無間復七火災，度七火災還有一水，如是乃至滿七水災。復七火災後風災起，如是總有八七火災、一七水災，一風災起。何緣如是？由彼有情所修定因於上漸勝，故感身壽其量漸長，由是所居亦漸久住。由此善釋《施設足》文遍淨天壽六十四劫。

(The treatise continues:) Again, when an eye afflicted with a film sees scattered hairs, if many are close together it can see them, but if each is placed far away it has no power to see. The reasoning about atoms facing the sense faculty should be the same. Moreover, atoms are given that name on the basis of color and so on. When color and so on are destroyed, atoms too are destroyed; atoms are included in substance and color and so on in quality, so things of different nature ought not to perish together by definition. That these two are of different nature is not reasonable. For when examined carefully, there is no separate earth and so on apart from color and so on, so they are not different in nature. Moreover, in their own school they admit that earth and so on are apprehended by the eye and body; how can these differ from color and touch? Also, when wool cloth or safflower and the like are burned, the corresponding perception no longer exists; thus the perception of wool and so on arises only from the distinctions of color and so on, because shape and measure are produced in ripening and transformation. Just as in a troop formation, one identifies a vase or basin by form, and if one does not observe the form, one does not identify it. Who would take down the raving words of a fool? Therefore debate against that school should stop. Where is the summit of these three calamities? The second dhyana is the summit of the fire calamity, because what lies below it is burned by fire. The third dhyana is the summit of the flood calamity, because what lies below it is soaked and destroyed by water. The fourth dhyana is the summit of the wind calamity, because what lies below it is scattered by wind. Whichever calamity extends up to it, that is called the summit of that calamity. Why do the lower three dhyanas suffer fire, water and wind? Because in the first, second and third dhyanas there are internal calamities corresponding to them. That is, in the first dhyana, investigation and analysis are the internal calamity, which can burn and distress the mind, and so on, corresponding to the external fire calamity. In the second dhyana, the sensation of joy is the internal calamity, which together with pliancy moistens the body like water, and because all coarse heaviness throughout the body is removed by it, the sutra says that the faculty of suffering is extinguished in the second dhyana. In the third dhyana, the movement of breath is the internal calamity; breath is also wind, corresponding to the external wind calamity. If one enters this dhyana, one has such an internal calamity, and when born in this dhyana one is destroyed by this external calamity. Why is earth not also established as a calamity? Because the vessel-world is itself earth; fire and the like can be opposed to earth, but one cannot say that earth is opposed to earth. What is the external calamity of the fourth dhyana? There is none there, because it is free of internal calamity. For this reason the Buddha called it unmoved, since it is not reached by the three calamities, internal or external. Some say that because the Pure Abodes heavens are in that realm, it is not destroyed by any calamity. Since beings there cannot be born in the formless heavens, nor should they go to other places again. If so, the vessel of that realm ought to be permanent. Not so, because it arises and perishes together with sentient beings. That is, in those heavens there is no overall ground-form; the dwellings are separate like stars. When sentient beings are born or die there, the heavenly palaces they dwell in arise and perish accordingly, and so the substance of that vessel too is impermanent. How are the three calamities ordered? First, seven fire calamities must arise one after another without interval; after that one flood calamity must arise. Then again seven fire calamities follow without interval, and after seven fire calamities again there is one flood, and so on until seven flood calamities are complete. After yet another seven fire calamities, the wind calamity arises. Thus altogether there are eight sets of seven fires, one set of seven floods, and one wind calamity. Why is this so? Because the concentration causes cultivated by those beings become progressively more excellent in the upper realms, and so the bodies and life spans they receive grow progressively longer, and accordingly the places they dwell in also last longer. By this one can well explain the passage of the Sheshi Zu (Prajnaptipada), which says that the life span of the Subhakrtsna heavens is sixty-four kalpas.

尊者世親造

Composed by the Venerable Vasubandhu.

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by the Tripitaka Master Xuanzang by imperial command.

分別業品第四之一

Chapter Four, Part One: Analysis of Karma.

如前所說有情世間及器世間各多差別，如是差別由誰而生？頌曰：

As was said before, the world of sentient beings and the world of vessels are each full of many differences; by what do these differences arise? The verse says:

世別由業生，思及思所作，

The diversity of the world is born from karma: volition and what volition produces;

思即是意業，所作謂身語。

volition itself is mental karma, and what it produces is bodily and verbal karma.

論曰：非由一主先覺而生，但由有情業差別起。若爾，何故俱從業生？欝金栴檀等甚可愛樂，而內身形等與彼相違。以諸有情業類如是，若造雜業感內身形，於九瘡門常流不淨。為對治彼，感外具生色香味觸甚可愛樂。諸天眾等造純淨業，故彼所招二事俱妙。此所由業其體是何？謂心所思及思所作。故契經說：有二種業，一者思業、二思已業，思已業者謂思所作。如是二業分別為三，謂即有情身、語、意業。如何建立此三業耶？為約所依、為據自性、為就等起？縱爾何違？若約所依應唯一業，以一切業並依身故。若據自性應唯語是業，以三種中唯語即業故。若就等起亦應唯一業，以一切業皆意等起故。毘婆沙師說立三業，如其次第由上三因。然心所思即是意業，思所作業分為身、語二業，是思所等起故。身語二業自性云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The world does not arise from a single master who first conceived it, but arises from differences in the karma of sentient beings. If so, why do both arise from karma? Turmeric, sandalwood and the like are very pleasing, while the inner body and so on are the opposite of them. Because the karma of sentient beings is of such kinds, if they create mixed karma they receive an inner body from which impurity constantly flows out of the nine orifices. To counteract that, they receive external things, born with color, scent, taste and touch that are very pleasing. The multitude of gods and others create pure karma, and so what they receive in both respects is excellent. What is the nature of the karma by which this arises? It is the volition in the mind and what volition produces. Therefore the sutra says: There are two kinds of karma, first volitional karma and second karma after volition; the karma after volition is what is produced by volition. These two kinds of karma are divided into three, namely the bodily, verbal and mental karma of sentient beings. How are these three karmas established? Is it by their basis, by their nature, or by their origin? Even if so, what is the objection? If by basis, there should be only one karma, since all karma rests on the body. If by nature, then only speech would be karma, since among the three only speech is itself karma. If by origin, there should also be only one karma, since all karma originates in the mind and so on. The Vaibhasika masters say that the three karmas are established by these three reasons respectively. However, the volition in the mind is itself mental karma, and the karma produced by volition is divided into bodily and verbal karma, since they are caused by volition. What is the nature of bodily and verbal karma? The verse says:

此身語二業，俱表無表性。

These two karmas, bodily and verbal, are both of the nature of informative and non-informative.

論曰：應知如是所說諸業中，身語二業俱表無表性。且身語表其相云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: It should be understood that among the karmas so described, bodily and verbal karma both have the nature of informative and non-informative. First, what are the characteristics of bodily and verbal informative karma? The verse says:

身表許別形，非行動為體，

Bodily informative karma is admitted to be a distinct shape, not movement as its substance,

以諸有為法，有剎那盡故。

because all conditioned things perish in an instant.

應無無因故，生因應能滅，

Because nothing arises without cause, the cause of arising should be able to cause extinction;

形亦非實有，應二根取故，

and shape too is not a real entity, since it would be apprehended by two faculties,

無別極微故，語表許言聲。

and because there is no separate atom; verbal informative karma is admitted to be vocal sound.

論曰：由思力故，別起如是如是身形，名身表業。有餘部說：動名身表，以身動時由業動故。為破此故，說非行動，以一切有為皆有剎那故。剎那何謂？得體無間滅，有此剎那法，名有剎那，如有杖人名為有杖。諸有為法才得自體，從此無間必滅歸無。若此處生即此處滅，無容從此轉至餘方，故不可言動名身表。若有為法皆有剎那，不至餘方義可成立。諸有為法皆有剎那，其理極成後必盡故，謂有為法滅不待因。所以者何？待因謂果，滅無非果，故不待因。滅既不待因，才生已即滅。若初不滅，後亦應然，以後與初有性等故。既後有盡，知前有滅。若後有異方可滅者，不應即此而名有異。即此相異，理必不然。豈不世間現見薪等，由與火合故致滅無？定無餘量過現量者，故非法滅皆不待因。如何知薪等，由火合故滅？以薪等火合，後便不見故。應共審思，如是薪等，為由火合滅故不見？為前薪等生已自滅，後不更生無故不見，如風手合燈焰鈴聲？故此義成應由比量。何謂比量？謂如前說，滅無非果故不待因。又若待因薪等方滅，應一切滅無不待因，如生待因，無無因者。然世現見覺焰音聲，不待餘因剎那自滅，故薪等滅亦不待因。有執覺聲前因後滅。彼亦非理，二不俱故。疑智苦樂及貪瞋等，自相相違理無俱義。若復有位明瞭覺聲無間便生不明瞭者，如何同類不明瞭法能滅明瞭同類法耶？最後覺聲復由誰滅？有執燈焰滅，以住無為因。有執焰滅時，由法非法力。彼俱非理，無非因故。非法非法為生滅因，以剎那剎那順違相反故。或於一切有為法中，皆可計度有此因義。既爾，本諍便應止息，許不待餘因皆有剎那故。又若薪等滅，火合為因，於熟變生中有下中上，應生因體即成滅因。所以者何？謂由火合能令薪等有熟變生，中上熟生、下中熟滅。或即或似生上中因，即能為因滅下中熟，則生因體應即滅因。

The treatise says: By the power of volition, one produces this or that bodily shape, and this is called bodily informative karma. Some other schools say that movement is called bodily informative karma, since when the body moves it moves by karma. To refute this it is said that it is not movement, because all conditioned things have the nature of instantaneous existence. What is meant by an instant? What perishes without interval upon obtaining its own being; a thing having this instant is called momentary, as one who has a staff is called a staff-holder. All conditioned things, as soon as they obtain their own being, necessarily perish into non-existence without interval. If a thing arises here and perishes here, there is no room for it to move from here to another place, so it cannot be said that movement is called bodily informative karma. If all conditioned things are momentary, the meaning that they do not go to another place can be established. That all conditioned things are momentary is very well established, because they must perish afterward; that is, the perishing of conditioned things does not depend on a cause. Why? What depends on a cause is called a result, and extinction, being non-existence, is not a result, so it does not depend on a cause. Since extinction does not depend on a cause, a thing perishes as soon as it has arisen. If it did not perish at the beginning, it would be the same later, since the later is the same in nature as the beginning. Since the later has an end, we know the earlier has perishing. If something perishes only when it becomes different later, it cannot be said that by this very fact it is called different; that it is both the same and different is not reasonable. Do we not see in the world that firewood and so on are brought to non-existence by combining with fire? There is no other means of knowledge that surpasses direct perception, so it is not the case that the extinction of things does not depend on causes. How do we know that firewood and so on are extinguished by combination with fire? Because after firewood and so on combine with fire, they are no longer seen. One should consider together: is it because firewood and so on perish through combination with fire that they are not seen, or because the former firewood and so on, having arisen, perish by themselves, and since there is no arising again they are not seen, like a lamp flame, a bell sound, or a flame blown by wind or hand? Therefore this meaning can be established by inference. What is the inference? It is as said before: extinction is not a result, so it does not depend on a cause. Moreover, if firewood and so on perished only by depending on a cause, then all extinction would be without dependence on cause, just as arising depends on a cause and nothing arises without cause. Yet in the world we see that the perception of a flame or a sound perishes by itself instantly without depending on another cause, so the extinction of firewood and so on likewise does not depend on a cause. Some hold that a perception or sound perishes after a former cause. This too is unreasonable, because the two do not coexist. Doubt, knowledge, suffering, pleasure, greed, hatred and so on are, by their own marks, contradictory and cannot be together by reason. If again there is a stage in which a clear perception or sound is immediately followed by an unclear one, how can an unclear thing of the same kind extinguish a clear thing of the same kind? And by what is the last perception or sound extinguished? Some hold that the lamp flame is extinguished because the cause of its remaining is absent. Others hold that when the flame is extinguished, it is by the power of Dharma and non-Dharma. Both are unreasonable, because there is no such non-cause. Dharma and non-Dharma are not causes of arising and perishing, since instant by instant they conform and oppose one another. Or one might in all conditioned things imagine this meaning of cause. If so, the original dispute should cease, since it is admitted that without depending on other causes all have momentariness. Again, if firewood and so on are extinguished with combination with fire as the cause, then in the arising of ripening and transformation, with lower, middle and upper degrees, the substance of the cause of arising would itself become the cause of extinction. Why? Because by combination with fire, firewood and so on can have ripening and transformation arise; the middle and upper ripening arises, and the lower and middle ripening perishes. Or else, what is identical with or similar to the cause of the upper and middle arising is itself able to be the cause of the perishing of the lower and middle ripening, and then the substance of the cause of arising would itself be the cause of extinction.

或滅生因應相無別，不應由即此，或似此彼有，彼復由即此，或似此非有。設於火焰差別生中，容計能生能滅因異；於灰雪酢日水地合能令薪等熟變生中，如何計度生滅因異？若爾，現見煎水減盡，火合於中為何所作？由事火合火界力增，由火界增能令水聚於後後位生漸漸微，乃至最微後便不續，是名火合於中所作。故無有因令諸法滅，法自然滅，是壞性故。自然滅故，才生即滅。由才生即滅，剎那滅義成。有剎那故定無行動，然於無間異方生中，如燒草焰行，起行增上慢。既由斯理行動定無，身表是形理得成立。然經部說：形非實有，謂顯色聚一面多生即於其中假立長色，待此長色於餘色聚一面少中假立短色，於四方面並多生中假立方色，於一切處遍滿生中假立圓色，所餘形色隨應當知。如見火㷮於一方面無間速運便謂為長，見彼周旋謂為圓色，故形無實別類色體。若謂實有別類形色，則應一色二根所取，謂於色聚長等差別，眼見身觸俱能了知，由此應成二根取過。理無色處二根所取。然如依觸取長等相，如是依顯能取於形，豈不觸形俱行一聚？故因取觸能憶念形，非於觸中親取形色。如見火色便憶火煖，及嗅花香能念花色，此中二法定不相離，故因取一可得念餘。無觸與形定不相離，如何取觸能定憶形？若觸與形非定同聚，然由取觸能憶念形，顯色亦應因觸定憶，或應形色如顯無定，則取觸位應不了形。而實不然，故不應說因取於觸能憶念形。或錦等中見多形故，便應一處有多實形。理不應然，如眾顯色，是故形色非實有體。又諸所有有對實色，必應有實別類極微。然無極微名為長等，故即多物如是安布差別相中假立長等。若謂即以形色極微如是安布名為長等，此唯朋黨，非極成故。謂若形色有別極微自相極成，可得聚集如是安布以為長等。非諸形色有別極微自相極成猶如顯色，云何得有聚集安布？

(The treatise continues:) Or else the causes of arising and of extinction would be without difference, but it cannot be that something exists because of this very thing or something like it, and that that again exists because of this very thing or something like it, yet does not exist. Suppose that in the differences of arising in a flame one may imagine that the cause that can produce and the cause that can extinguish are different; but in the ripening and transformation of firewood and the like, which ashes, snow, vinegar, sunlight, water and earth in combination can cause, how can one imagine that the causes of arising and extinction differ? If so, we see that when water is boiled until it is used up, what does fire do in it? Because of the combination of fire, the power of the element of fire increases, and by the increase of the fire element the water-mass in later and later moments arises more and more finely, until at the finest, afterward it no longer continues; this is what the combination of fire does in it. Therefore there is no cause that makes things perish; things perish naturally, because it is their nature to be destroyed. Because they perish naturally, they perish as soon as they arise. Because they perish as soon as they arise, the meaning of momentariness is established. Because of momentariness, there is certainly no movement; rather, in the arising in different places without interval, like a flame burning grass as it spreads, an overweening belief in movement arises. Since by this reasoning movement certainly does not exist, it is reasonable to establish bodily informative karma as shape. The Sautrantika school, however, says: Shape is not a real entity. That is, when a mass of visible color is produced in great number on one side, the notion of long color is conventionally set up within it; relative to this long color, a short color is conventionally set up where the other color mass is few on one side; where many arise on all four sides, a square color is conventionally set up; where they fill everywhere, a round color is conventionally set up; and the remaining shapes should be understood accordingly. Just as one sees a firebrand moving quickly in one direction without interval and calls it long, and sees it whirling around and calls it round, so shape has no separate real kind of substance. If a separate kind of shape were real, then one color would be apprehended by two faculties; that is, in the difference of long and so on in a mass of colors, the eye sees and the body touches and both can know it, and so the fault of apprehension by two faculties would result. By reason a color-base is not apprehended by two faculties. But if one grasps the marks of long and so on by touch, in the same way one can grasp shape by visible color; but are touch and shape not together in one aggregate? Therefore, on grasping touch one can recall shape, but one does not directly grasp shape in touch. Just as on seeing the color of fire one recalls the warmth of fire, and on smelling the scent of a flower one thinks of its color; in these two things, since they are certainly inseparable, by grasping one one can recall the other. Touch and shape are not certainly inseparable; so how, by grasping touch, can one definitely recall shape? If touch and shape are not necessarily in the same aggregate, but one recalls shape by grasping touch, then visible color too should be recalled by touch, or else shape and color should be indeterminate, and in the moment of grasping touch one would not know the shape. In fact this is not so, so it cannot be said that by grasping touch one recalls shape. Or since in brocade and the like many shapes are seen, there should be many real shapes in one place. This is unreasonable, just as with many colors, and therefore shape is not a real entity. Furthermore, all real resistant matter must have a separate kind of real atom. Yet there is no atom called long and so on, so long and so on are conventionally set up in the arrangement and difference of many things so arranged. If you say that the very atoms of shape, so arranged, are called long and so on, this is only a partisan claim and is not accepted on both sides. That is to say, if separate atoms of shape had their own nature accepted on both sides, one could say that, gathered and so arranged, they make long and so on. But it is not accepted on both sides that shapes have separate atoms with their own nature like visible color; how could there be gathering and arrangement?

豈不現見諸土器等，有顯相同而形相異？為不已辯即於多物安布差別假立長等，如眾蟻等有相不殊，然有行輪安布形別。形依顯等理亦應然。豈不闇中或於遠處觀杌等物了形非顯，寧即顯等安布為形，以闇遠中觀顯不了，是故但起長等分別。如於遠闇觀眾樹人，但了行軍不知別相，理必應爾，以或有時不了顯形唯知總聚。既已遮遣行動及形，汝等經部宗立何為身表？立形為身表，但假而非實。既執但用假為身表，復立何法為身業耶？若業依身立為身業，謂能種種運動身思，依身門行故名身業。語業意業隨其所應，立差別名當知亦爾。若爾，何故契經中說有二種業：一者思業、二思已業。此二何異？謂前加行起思惟思，我當應為如是如是所應作事名為思業。既思惟已起作事思，隨前所思作所作事，動身發語名思已業。若爾，表業則為定無。表業既無，欲無表業亦應非有，便成大過。如是大過有理能遮，謂從如前所說二表，殊勝思故起思差別，名為無表。此有何過？此應名為隨心轉業，如定無表心俱轉故。無如是過，審決勝思、動發勝思所引生故。設許有表，亦待如前所說思力，以性鈍故。毘婆沙師說：形是實故，身表業形色為體，語表業體謂即言聲，無表業相如前已說。經部亦說：此非實有，由先誓限唯不作故。彼亦依過去大種施設，然過去大種體非有故，又諸無表無色相故。毘婆沙說：此亦實有。云何知然？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) Do we not see among earthen vessels and the like that some have the same visible color but different shapes? Have we not already explained that long and so on are conventionally set up in the different arrangement of many things, like many ants that have no difference in appearance yet are arranged in lines and circles with different shapes? Shape depending on color and so on should be understood in the same way. Do we not, in the dark or from afar, see a stump and the like and know its shape without its color? How can shape be the arrangement of color and so on itself? Because in the dark and at a distance, viewing color is unclear, only notions of long and so on arise. Just as viewing many trees or people from afar in the dark one knows only an army marching and does not know individual features, this must be the reasoning, because at times one does not distinguish color and shape and knows only a total mass. Having already rejected movement and shape, what do you of the Sautrantika school establish as bodily informative karma? If you establish shape as bodily informative karma, it is only conventional and not real. Since you hold that only the conventional is used as bodily informative karma, what dharma then do you establish as bodily karma? If you establish bodily karma as karma that depends on the body, namely the volition that moves the body of various kinds, which acts through the door of the body and so is called bodily karma, then verbal karma and mental karma too should be understood to be named differently as appropriate. If so, why does the sutra say there are two kinds of karma: first, volitional karma, and second, karma after volition? What is the difference between the two? The volition that thinks, arising in preliminary effort, "I shall do such and such things that should be done," is called volitional karma. Having thought, the volition that sets about doing the deed, following what was previously thought, moves the body and utters speech, and this is called karma after volition. If so, informative karma would certainly not exist. If informative karma does not exist, non-informative karma should also not exist, and this would be a great fault. Such a great fault can be rightly rebutted: from the two kinds of informative karma as described before, because of the excellent volition arising and the differences in volition, there is what is called non-informative karma. What fault is there in this? This should be called karma that turns along with the mind, as in concentration where the non-informative turns together with the mind. There is no such fault, because it is brought forth by excellent volition that judges and decides, and excellent volition that sets in motion. Even if informative karma is admitted, it too depends on the power of volition as described before, because its nature is dull. The Vaibhasika masters say that, since shape is real, bodily informative karma has form as its substance, verbal informative karma has vocal sound as its substance, and the marks of non-informative karma are as already explained. The Sautrantikas also say that this is not real, being only a vow, a limit set beforehand, simply not to do something. They too base it on past great elements, but since the substance of past great elements does not exist, and since non-informative things have no mark of form, it is not real. The Vaibhasikas say that this too is real. How do we know this? The verse says:

說三無漏色，增非作等故。

Three kinds of undefiled form are spoken of, and because of increase and not being made, and so on.

論曰：以契經說色有三種，此三為處攝一切色：一者有色有見有對、二者有色無見有對、三者有色無見無對。又契經中說有無漏色，如契經說：無漏法雲何？謂於過去未來現在諸所有色不起愛恚，乃至識亦然。是名無漏法。除無表色，何法名為無見無對及無漏色？又契經說有福增長，如契經言：諸有淨信，若善男子或善女人，成就有依七福業事，若行若住若寐若覺，恆時相續，福業漸增福業續起，無依亦爾。除無表業，若起餘心或無心時，依何法說福業增長？又非自作，但遣他為，若無無表業，不應成業道。以遣他表非彼業道攝，此業未能正作所作故、使作所作已、此性無異故。又契經說：苾芻當知，法謂外處。是十一處所不攝法無見無對，不言無色。若不觀於法處所攝無表色者，此言闕減便成無用。又若無無表，應無八道支，以在定時語等無故。若爾，何故契經中言：彼如是知、彼如是見，修習正見、正思惟、正精進、正念、正定皆至圓滿。正語、業、命先時已得清淨鮮白，此依先時已得世間離染道說，無相違過。又若撥無無表色者，則亦應無有別解脫律儀，非受戒後有戒相續，雖起異緣心而名苾芻等。又契經說：離殺等戒名為隄塘戒，能長時相續堰遏犯戒過故。非無有體可名隄塘。由此等證知，實有無表色。經部師說：此證雖多種種希奇，然不應理。所以然者？所引證中且初經言有三色者，瑜伽師說：修靜慮時定力所生定境界色，非眼根境故名無見、不障處所故名無對。若謂既爾，如何名色釋如是難與無表同？又經所言無漏色者，瑜伽師說：即由定力所生色中，依無漏定者即說為無漏。有餘師言：無學身色及諸外色皆是無漏，非漏依故得無漏名。何故經言有漏法者諸所有眼乃至廣說？此非漏對治故得有漏名，是則此應言有漏亦無漏。若爾，何過？有相雜失。若依此理說為有漏，曾不依此說為無漏。

The treatise says: The sutra says that form is of three kinds, and these three include all form in the bases: first, form that is visible and resistant; second, form that is invisible and resistant; third, form that is invisible and non-resistant. Also, the sutra speaks of undefiled form, as the sutra says: What are undefiled things? That is, one does not give rise to love or hatred toward any form, past, future or present, and likewise up to consciousness; these are called undefiled things. Apart from non-informative form, what thing could be called invisible, non-resistant and undefiled form? Also the sutra speaks of the increase of merit, as the sutra says: Whenever a good man or good woman with pure faith accomplishes the seven kinds of meritorious deeds that rely on something, whether walking, standing, sleeping or waking, at all times continuously, merit grows and merit continues to arise, and so too for those that do not rely on anything. Apart from non-informative karma, when one gives rise to other minds or has no mind, on what dharma is the increase of merit said to depend? Also, what one does not do oneself but has another do: if there were no non-informative karma, it could not become a path of action. Since the informative karma of sending another is not included in the path of action of that one, and since this karma is not yet the actual doing of what is done, but the having-it-done has been done, and its nature is no different. Also the sutra says: Bhiksus, know that Dharma means the external base. The things not included in the eleven bases are invisible and non-resistant, and are not said to be formless. If one does not take non-informative form as included in the Dharma base, this statement would be lacking and useless. Furthermore, if there were no non-informative karma, there would be no eightfold path factors, since while in concentration there would be no speech and the like. If so, why does the sutra say: Knowing thus, seeing thus, he cultivates right view, right thought, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration, all to perfection; right speech, action and livelihood have previously already been purified and made bright? This is said in reference to the worldly path of detachment already attained earlier, so there is no contradiction. Also, if one denies non-informative form, then there would also be no restraint of individual liberation, and it would not be the case that after receiving the precepts one has a continuity of precepts, so that even when one produces other thoughts one is still called a bhiksu and so on. Also the sutra says: The precepts of abstaining from killing and so on are called embankment precepts, because they hold back and block offenses over a long period continuously. What has no substance cannot be called an embankment. From these and other proofs it is known that non-informative form really exists. The Sautrantika masters say: Although these proofs are many and of various wonderful kinds, they are not reasonable. Why? Among the proofs cited, first, the sutra that mentions three kinds of form refers to what the Yogacara masters say: when cultivating dhyana, the form of the object of concentration produced by the power of concentration is called invisible because it is not the object of the eye faculty, and non-resistant because it does not obstruct place. If you say that this being so, why would the difficulty in explaining the name "form" be the same as for non-informative form? Also, the "undefiled form" spoken of in the sutra is, according to the Yogacara masters, form produced by the power of concentration, and that which depends on undefiled concentration is called undefiled. Other masters say: The bodily form of the one beyond training and all external forms are undefiled, because they are not the basis of outflows and so receive the name undefiled. Why then does the sutra say, of defiled things, "whatever eyes there are," and so on, at length? Because they are not antidotes to outflows they receive the name defiled; then this should be called defiled and also undefiled. If so, what is the fault? There would be the fault of confusion. If it is called defiled by this reasoning, it has never been called undefiled by this reasoning.

無漏亦然，有何相雜？若色處等一向有漏，此經何緣差別而說？如說有漏有取諸色心栽覆事，聲等亦爾。又經所說福增長言，先軌範師作如是釋：由法爾力福業增長，如如施主所施財物。如是如是受者受用，由諸受者受用施物，功德攝益有差別故。於後施主心雖異緣，而前緣施思所燻習，微細相續漸漸轉變差別而生，由此當來能感多果。故密意說，恆時相續福業漸增福業續起。若謂如何由餘相續德益差別令餘相續心雖異緣而有轉變？釋此疑難與無表同。彼復如何由餘相續德益差別令餘相續別有真實無表法生？若於無依諸福業事如何相續福業增長，亦由數習緣彼思故，乃至夢中亦恆隨轉。無表論者於無依福既無表業，寧有無表？有說：有依諸福業事，亦由數習緣彼境思，故說恆時相續增長。若爾，經說：諸有苾芻具淨屍羅成調善法，受他所施諸飲食已，入無量心定身證具足住。由此因緣應知施主無量福善滋潤相續，無量安樂流注其身。施主爾時福恆增長，豈定常有緣彼勝思？是故所言思所燻習微細相續漸漸轉變差別而生，定為應理。又非自作但遣他為業道如何得成滿者，應如是說：由本加行，使者依教所作成時，法爾能令教者微細相續轉變差別而生，由此當來能感多果。諸有自作事究竟時，當知亦由如是道理。應知即此微細相續轉變差別名為業道，此即於果假立因名，是身語業所引果故。如執別有無表，論宗無表亦名身語業道。然大德說：於取蘊中由三時起思，為殺罪所觸，謂我當殺正殺殺已。非但由此業道究竟，勿自母等實未被害，由謂已害成無間業。然於自造不誤殺事，起如是思，殺罪便觸。若依此說非不應理，何於無表偏懷憎嫉定撥為無，而許所燻微細相續轉變差別？

(The treatise continues:) The undefiled is likewise; what mixing is there? If the form base and the rest are always defiled, why does this sutra speak of them differently? As it is said, defiled, appropriated forms are the matter of mind's planting and covering; sound and the rest are the same. Again, concerning the sutra's phrase "merit increases," the earlier master of rules explained it thus: by the power of the nature of things, meritorious karma increases, just as the wealth given by a donor is, according to how the recipients use it, differently beneficial to their merit according to how the recipients enjoy the gift. Later, though the donor's mind may turn to other objects, the continuum that was perfumed by the earlier volition of giving, in subtle form, gradually changes and arises in different ways, and for this reason it can bring many fruits in the future. Hence, with a hidden meaning, it is said that the meritorious karma of a constant continuum increases, and meritorious karma continues to arise. If one asks how, through the differing benefit of virtue in one continuum, another continuum, though its mind turns to other objects, undergoes change, the explanation of this difficulty is the same as for unmanifest karma. And how, through the differing benefit of virtue in one continuum, does a separate real unmanifest dharma arise in another continuum? As for meritorious deeds without a basis, how does the meritorious karma increase in a continuum? It is also because of repeated cultivation, taking that volition as object, so that it follows along even in dreams. In the theory of unmanifest karma, since there is no unmanifest karma for merit without a basis, how could there be unmanifest karma? Some say: for meritorious deeds with a basis, it is also because of repeated cultivation, taking the volition regarding that object as the support, that it is said to increase constantly in continuity. If so, the sutra says: "A monk who is endowed with pure morality and has accomplished good dharmas, having received food and drink given by others, enters the immeasurable mind concentration and abides, bodily realizing it in completeness. By this cause, one should know that the donor's immeasurable merit and goodness moistens his continuum, and immeasurable happiness flows into his body." At that time the donor's merit constantly increases; could it be that he always has a superior volition directed at that? Therefore what was said, that the subtle continuum perfumed by volition gradually changes and arises in different ways, is surely the reasonable doctrine. Again, if one does not act oneself but only sends another to do it, how is the course of action completed? One should say: through the original preparatory effort, when the messenger completes the deed according to instructions, by the nature of things it causes the subtle continuum of the one who gave the instruction to change and arise in difference, and for this reason it can bring many fruits in the future. When one acts oneself and the deed is completed, one should know it is also by this same reasoning. One should know that this change and difference in the subtle continuum is itself called the course of action; here the name of cause is figuratively applied to the effect, since it is the result drawn out by bodily and verbal action. As for those who hold that there is a separate unmanifest karma, in their doctrine unmanifest karma is also called the course of bodily and verbal action. However, the great master said: in the aggregates of appropriation, volition arises at three times and one is touched by the offense of killing, namely: "I shall kill," "I am killing," and "I have killed." It is not only by this that the course of action is completed; otherwise, if one's mother and others were not actually harmed, one would be said to have harmed them and so commit an act of immediate retribution. However, in the case of one's own deliberate and not mistaken act of killing, if such a volition arises, the offense of killing is touched. If this is what is said, it is not unreasonable; why then do you harbor hatred and jealousy toward unmanifest karma and insist on denying it as nonexistent, while allowing the change and difference of the perfumed subtle continuum?

然此與彼俱難了知，今於此中無所憎嫉，然許業道是心種類，由身加行事究竟時，離於心身於能教者身中別有無表法生，如是所宗不令生喜。若由此引彼加行生事究竟時，即此由彼相續轉變差別而生，如是所宗可令生喜。但由心等相續轉變差別，能生未來果故。又先已說。先說者何？謂表業既無，寧有無表等。又說法處不言無色，由有如前所說定境無見無對法處攝色。又言道支應無八者，且彼應說正在道時，如何得有正語業命？為於此位有發正言、起正作業求衣等不？不爾，云何由彼獲得如是種類無漏無表，故出觀後由前勢力能起三正不起三邪，以於因中立果名故，於無表立語業命名。若爾，云何不受此義？雖無無表而在道時，獲得如斯意樂依止，故出觀後由前勢力，能起三正不起三邪。以於因中立果名故，可具安立八聖道支。有餘師言：唯說不作邪語等事以為道支，謂在定時由聖道力，便能獲得決定不作。此定不作，依無漏道而得安立，故名無漏，非一切處要依真實別有法體方立名數。如八世法，謂得、不得及與毀、譽、稱、譏、苦、樂。非此不得衣食等事別有實體，此亦應然。別解脫律儀亦應准此，謂由思願力先立要期，能定遮防身語惡業，由斯故建立別解脫律儀。若起異緣心應無律儀者，此難非理，由燻習力欲起過時憶便止故。戒為隄塘義亦應准此，謂先立誓限定不作惡，後數憶念慚愧現前，能自制持令不犯戒。故隄塘義由心受持，若由無表能遮犯戒，應無失念而破戒者。且止此等眾多諍論。毘婆沙師說有實物名無表色，是我所宗。前說無表大種所造性，為表大種造、為有異耶？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) However, both are hard to understand, and here I harbor no hatred or jealousy; I only accept that the course of action is a kind of mind, and that when the deed of bodily preparation is completed, a separate unmanifest dharma arises in the body of the one who gave instruction apart from mind and body; this doctrine does not give rise to delight. But if by this one draws out the deed that arises from that preparatory effort, and when it is completed, this arises by the change and difference in that continuum, this doctrine can give rise to delight, because it is only through the change and difference in the continuum of mind and the rest that future fruit can be produced. Also, this was already explained earlier. What was explained earlier? That, since manifest karma does not exist, how could there be unmanifest karma, and so on. It is also said that the dharma base does not include the formless, because there is the form included in the dharma base, namely the form belonging to meditative states, as before, which is invisible and non-resistant. It is also said that the path factors would lack eight; but they should be said to be present at the time of the path, so how could right speech, right action, and right livelihood exist? At this stage, does one utter right speech, undertake right action, seek robes and so on? No. How then, through that, does one obtain this kind of undefiled unmanifest karma? Therefore, after emerging from contemplation, by the force of the earlier state, one can give rise to the three rights and not give rise to the three wrongs; since the name of the fruit is applied to the cause, the names of verbal action and livelihood are given to the unmanifest. If so, why not accept this meaning? Though there is no unmanifest karma, at the time of the path one obtains such a disposition and support, so after emerging from contemplation, by the force of the earlier state, one can give rise to the three rights and not give rise to the three wrongs. Since the name of fruit is applied to the cause, the eight noble path factors can be fully established. Other masters say: only the non-commission of wrong speech and the like is taken as the path factor; that is, when in concentration, by the power of the noble path, one obtains the certainty of not doing them. This certain non-doing is established depending on the undefiled path, and so is called undefiled; it is not that in every case a real separate substance is required before a name or number is established. Like the eight worldly dharmas, namely gain and loss, defamation and praise, eulogy and ridicule, suffering and pleasure: loss of clothing, food, and so on has no separate real substance; this should be the same. The discipline of individual liberation should follow this too: by the power of volition and vow, one first sets a fixed term and can definitely guard against bodily and verbal evil deeds; for this reason the discipline of individual liberation is established. If one says that when the mind turns to other objects there would be no discipline, this objection is unreasonable, because by the power of perfuming, when one is about to commit an offense, remembrance stops one. The meaning of morality as an embankment should also follow this: one first establishes a vow and limit not to do evil, and later repeated remembrance and shame become manifest and can restrain oneself and keep from breaking the precepts. Therefore the meaning of an embankment is upheld by the mind; if unmanifest karma could prevent breaking the precepts, there should be no one who loses mindfulness and breaks precepts. Let us stop these many disputes here. The Vaibhasika masters hold that there is a real thing called unmanifest form, which is our own doctrine. It was said earlier that unmanifest karma is of the nature of derived matter; is it produced from the same great elements as manifest karma, or are they different? The verse says:

此能造大種，異於表所依。

The great elements that produce this are different from those on which the manifest relies.

論曰：無表與表異大種生。所以者何？從一和合有細麁果，不應理故。如表與大必同時生，無表亦然，為有差別。一切所造色多與大種俱時而生，然現在未來亦有少分依過去者。少分者何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Unmanifest karma arises from great elements different from those of manifest karma. Why? Because it is unreasonable that a subtle fruit and a coarse fruit should arise from one combination. As manifest karma and the great elements must arise at the same time, so unmanifest karma is also like this; there is a difference. All derived forms mostly arise at the same time as the great elements, but in the present and future some depend in part on the past. What is this part? The verse says:

欲後念無表，依過大種生。

In the desire realm, unmanifest karma after the first moment arises depending on past great elements.

論曰：唯欲界繫初剎那後，所有無表從過大生，此為所依無表得起。現身大種但能為依，為轉隨轉因隨其次第，如輪行於地，手地為依。何地身語業？何地大所造？頌曰：

The treatise says: Only for desire-realm unmanifest karma after the first moment, all of it arises from past great elements, and this is the support on which unmanifest karma can arise. The great elements of the present body can only serve as support, as a cause of continuing and following, in due order, as a wheel moves on the ground with the hand and the ground as support. On what ground are bodily and verbal actions, and by what ground's great elements are they derived? The verse says:

有漏自地依，無漏隨生處。

Defiled ones rely on their own ground; undefiled ones follow the place of birth.

論曰：欲界所繫身語二業，唯欲界繫大種所造。如是乃至第四靜慮身語二業，唯是彼地大種所造。若身語業是無漏者，隨生此地應起現前，即是此地大種所造，以無漏法不墮界故、必無大種是無漏故、由所依力無漏生故。此表無表其類是何？復是何類大種所造？頌曰：

The treatise says: Bodily and verbal actions belonging to the desire realm are derived only from great elements belonging to the desire realm. Likewise, up to the fourth dhyana, bodily and verbal actions are derived only from the great elements of that ground. If bodily and verbal actions are undefiled, they become manifest according to the place of birth, and are derived from the great elements of that ground, because undefiled dharmas do not fall within any realm, because there are certainly no great elements that are undefiled, and because undefiled dharmas arise by the force of their support. What kind are these manifest and unmanifest karmas, and from what kind of great elements are they derived? The verse says:

無表無執受，亦等流情數，

Unmanifest karma is unappropriated, and also outflowing; it belongs to sentient beings,

散依等流性，有受異大生，

The distracted kind relies on the outflowing nature; the appropriated arises from different great elements,

定生依長養，無受無異大，

The kind born of concentration relies on the nourished; it is unappropriated, without different great elements,

表唯等流性，屬身有執受。

Manifest karma is only of the outflowing nature; it belongs to the body and is appropriated.

論曰：今此頌中先辯無表是無執受，無變礙故。亦等流性，亦言顯此有是剎那，謂初無漏。餘皆等流性，謂同類因生。此唯有情，依內起故。於中欲界所有無表，等流有受別異大生。異大生言顯身語七一一是別大種所造，定生無表差別有二。謂諸靜慮無漏律儀。此二俱依定所長養。無受無異大種所生。無異大言顯此無表七支同一具四大種所生。所以者何？所依大種，如心唯一，無差別故。應知有表唯是等流，此若屬身是有執受，餘義皆與散無表同。表業生時為要破壞本身形量、為不爾耶？若爾，何失？若破壞者，異熟色斷應可更續，是則違越毘婆沙宗。若不破壞，如何得有一身處所二形量成？有別新生等流大種，造有表業不破本身。若爾，隨依何身分處起有表業應大於本，新生大種遍增益故。若不遍增益，如何遍生表？身有孔隙，故得相容。已辯業門二三五別。此性界地差別云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: In this verse, first it is explained that unmanifest karma is unappropriated, because it has no change or obstruction. It is also of the outflowing nature; the word "also" shows that there is one that is momentary, namely the first undefiled one. The rest are all of the outflowing nature, that is, produced from a cause of the same class. It belongs only to sentient beings, because it arises relying on the inner. Among these, the unmanifest karma of the desire realm is outflowing, appropriated, and arises from different great elements. The phrase "arises from different great elements" shows that the seven bodily and verbal limbs are each derived from separate great elements. The unmanifest karma born of concentration has two kinds, namely the discipline of the dhyanas and the undefiled discipline. Both of these rely on the nourished great elements of concentration. They are unappropriated and not born of different great elements. The phrase "without different great elements" shows that this unmanifest karma of seven limbs is born from the same set of four great elements. Why? Because the supporting great elements, like the mind, are one and without difference. One should know that manifest karma is only outflowing, and if it belongs to the body it is appropriated; the other meanings are the same as for distracted unmanifest karma. When manifest karma arises, does it have to destroy the measure of the original body, or not? If so, what is the fault? If it destroys it, then ripened matter that has been cut off could be continued again, which would contradict the Vaibhasika doctrine. If it does not destroy it, how can there be two measures of form in the one place of a single body? There are separate newly arisen outflowing great elements that produce manifest karma without destroying the original body. If so, wherever in the body manifest karma arises, it should be larger than the original, because the newly arisen great elements would add to it everywhere. If they do not add everywhere, how does manifest karma arise everywhere? The body has pores, and so they can coexist. The distinctions of two, three, and five among the gates of karma have been explained. What are the differences in nature, realm, and ground? The verse says:

無表記餘三，不善唯在欲，

Unmanifest karma is neutral and the other two; the unwholesome exists only in the desire realm,

無表遍欲色，表唯有伺二，

Unmanifest karma pervades the desire and form realms; manifest karma exists only in the two grounds with sustained thought,

欲無有覆表，以無等起故。

In the desire realm, there is no defiled-obscured manifest karma, because there is no mind that gives rise to it.

論曰：無表唯通善不善性，無有無記。所以者何？以無記心勢力微劣，不能引發強業令生，可因滅時果仍續起。所言餘者，謂表及思。三謂皆通善、惡、無記。於中不善在欲非餘，已斷不善根無慚無愧故。善及無記諸地皆有，以於頌中不別遮故。欲色二界皆有無表，以無色中無大種故。隨於何處有身語轉，唯是處有身語律儀。若爾，身生欲色二界入無色定應有律儀，如起無漏心有無漏無表。不爾，以彼不墮界故。於無色界若有無表，應有無表非大種生。不可說言有漏無表以別界地大種為依。又背諸色入無色定，故彼定中不能生色，由彼定有伏色想故。毘婆沙師作如是說：為治惡戒故起屍羅。唯欲界中有諸惡戒，無色於欲具四種遠：一所依遠、二行相遠、三所緣遠、四對治遠，故無色中無無表色。表色唯在二有伺地，謂通欲界初靜慮中，非上地中可言有表。有覆無記表，欲界定無，唯於梵世中可得說有。曾聞大梵有誑諂言，謂自眾中為避馬勝所徵問故矯自歎等。上地既無言，何得有聲處？有外大種為因發聲。有餘師言：上三靜慮亦有無覆無記表業，無善無染。所以者何？非上地生能起下地善及染心發身語表，劣故斷故。前說為善。復以何因二定以上都無表業？於欲界中無有有覆無記表業，以無發業等起心故。有尋伺心能發表業，二定以上都無此心。又發表心唯修所斷，見所斷惑內門轉故。以欲界中決定無有有覆無記修所斷惑，是故表業上三地都無。欲界中無有覆無記表，為但由等起令諸法成善不善性等？不爾。云何？由四種因成善性等：一由勝義、二由自性、三由相應、四由等起。何法何性由何因成？頌曰：

The treatise says: Unmanifest karma extends only to wholesome and unwholesome natures; there is none that is neutral. Why? Because the force of a neutral mind is weak and cannot draw forth strong karma, so that when the cause ceases the fruit would still continue. As for the "others," these are manifest karma and volition. The "three" refers to the wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral, all of which they extend to. Among these, the unwholesome exists only in the desire realm and not elsewhere, because those who have cut off the unwholesome roots are without shame and without embarrassment. The wholesome and neutral exist in all grounds, since the verse does not exclude them separately. Unmanifest karma exists in both the desire and form realms, because there are no great elements in the formless realm. Wherever bodily and verbal actions occur, only there are bodily and verbal disciplines. If so, one born in the desire or form realm and entering a formless concentration should have discipline, as when one gives rise to an undefiled mind there is undefiled unmanifest karma. Not so, because that does not fall within the realms. If there were unmanifest karma in the formless realm, there should be unmanifest karma not born of great elements. One cannot say that defiled unmanifest karma relies on the great elements of another realm or ground. Moreover, entering the formless concentration turns one's back on forms, so in that concentration form cannot arise, because that concentration has the subduing of the perception of form. The Vaibhasika masters say: Morality arises to counteract evil conduct. Only in the desire realm are there evil precepts, and the formless realm is remote from the desire realm in four ways: remote in support, in mode of operation, in object, and in remedy; therefore there is no unmanifest form in the formless realm. Manifest form exists only in the two grounds with sustained thought, that is, it extends to the desire realm and the first dhyana, and one cannot say manifest karma exists in higher grounds. Defiled-obscured neutral manifest karma certainly does not exist in the desire realm and can be said to exist only in the Brahma world. It has been heard that Great Brahma had deceitful and flattering speech, namely falsely praising himself among his own assembly to avoid the questioning of Asvajit, and so on. Since the higher grounds have no speech, how could there be a sound base? External great elements serve as the cause that produces sound. Other masters say: in the upper three dhyanas there is also unobscured neutral manifest karma, with neither wholesome nor defiled. Why? Because one born in a higher ground cannot give rise to the wholesome or defiled mind of a lower ground to produce bodily and verbal manifest karma, because it is inferior and because it has been cut off. It was said before that it is wholesome. By what cause then is there no manifest karma at all from the second dhyana upward? In the desire realm there is no defiled-obscured neutral manifest karma, because there is no mental factor that gives rise to the action. A mind with initial and sustained thought can give rise to manifest karma, and from the second dhyana upward there is no such mind. Also, the mind that gives rise to manifest karma is only cut off by cultivation; it operates through the outer gate of delusions cut off by seeing. In the desire realm there is certainly no defiled-obscured neutral delusion cut off by cultivation, and therefore there is no manifest karma in the upper three grounds. In the desire realm there is no defiled-obscured neutral manifest karma; but is it only through the arising-cause that dharmas become wholesome, unwholesome, and so on? No. How then? The wholesome nature and the rest are established by four causes: first, by ultimate meaning; second, by intrinsic nature; third, by association; fourth, by arising. Which dharma, which nature, is established by which cause? The verse says:

勝義善解脫，自性慚愧根，

Ultimately wholesome is liberation; wholesome by nature are shame, embarrassment, and the roots;

相應彼相應，等起色業等，

Wholesome by association are those associated with them; wholesome by arising are form, karma, and the like,

翻此名不善，勝無記二常。

The reverse is called unwholesome; the supreme and the two constants are neutral.

論曰：勝義善者，謂真解脫，以涅槃中最極安隱、眾苦永寂猶如無病。自性善者，謂慚愧根，以有為中唯慚與愧及無貪等三種善根，不待相應及餘等起，體性是善猶如良藥。相應善者，謂彼相應，以心心所要與慚愧善根相應方成善性，若不與彼慚等相應，善性不成，如雜藥水。等起善者，謂身語業不相應行，以是自性及相應善所等起故，如良藥汁所引生乳。若異類心所起得等，云何成善？此義應思，如說善性四種差別，不善四種與此相違。云何相違？勝義不善，謂生死法。由生死中諸法皆以苦為自性，極不安隱猶如痼疾。自性不善，謂無慚愧三不善根，由有漏中唯無慚愧及貪瞋等三不善根，不待相應及餘等起，體是不善猶如毒藥。相應不善，謂彼相應，由心心所法要與無慚愧不善根相應方成不善性，異則不然，如雜毒水。等起不善，謂身語業不相應行，以是自性相應不善所等起故，如毒藥汁所引生乳。若爾，便無一有漏法是無記或善，皆生死攝故。若據勝義誠如所言，然於此中約異熟說。諸有漏法若不能記異熟果者立無記名，於中若能記愛異熟說名為善，故無有過。勝義無記，謂二無為，以太虛空及非擇滅唯無記性更無異門。於此應思。若等起力令身語業成善不善，則諸大種例亦應然。以作者心本欲起業，非四大種，故不成例。若爾，定心隨轉無表，非正在定作意引生，亦非散心加行引發，不同類故。如何成善？或天眼耳應成善性，於如是義應設劬勞。如上所言，見所斷惑內門轉故不能發表。若爾，何緣契經中說：由邪見故起邪思惟、邪語、邪業及邪命等。此不相違。何以故？頌曰：

The treatise says: Ultimately wholesome refers to true liberation, because in nirvana there is utmost peace and security and all suffering is forever stilled, like being free of disease. Wholesome by intrinsic nature refers to shame, embarrassment, and the roots, because among conditioned things only shame, embarrassment, and the three wholesome roots such as non-greed are wholesome in their nature, not depending on association or other arising, like good medicine. Wholesome by association refers to what is associated with them, because mind and mental factors become wholesome in nature only when associated with shame, embarrassment, and the wholesome roots; if not associated with shame and the rest, the wholesome nature is not established, like medicine mixed in water. Wholesome by arising refers to bodily and verbal actions and the dissociated formations, because they are aroused by what is wholesome by nature and by association, like milk produced from the juice of good medicine. If a different kind of mind causes the arising, how does it become wholesome? One should think about this meaning. As the four kinds of wholesome differences are stated, the four kinds of unwholesome are the opposite. How opposite? Ultimately unwholesome refers to the dharmas of birth and death, because all dharmas in birth and death have suffering as their nature, most insecure like a chronic illness. Unwholesome by nature refers to shamelessness, lack of embarrassment, and the three unwholesome roots, because among the defiled only shamelessness, lack of embarrassment, and the three roots such as greed and hatred are unwholesome in essence, not depending on association or other arising, like poison. Unwholesome by association refers to what is associated with them, because mind and mental factors become unwholesome only when associated with the unwholesome roots of shamelessness and lack of embarrassment; otherwise they are not, like water mixed with poison. Unwholesome by arising refers to bodily and verbal actions and dissociated formations, because they are aroused by what is unwholesome by nature and by association, like milk produced from the juice of poison. If so, there would be no defiled dharma that is neutral or wholesome, since all are included in birth and death. If we speak by the ultimate meaning, it is indeed as you say; but here it is spoken of in terms of ripened results. If a defiled dharma cannot designate a ripened fruit, it is called neutral; among them, one that can designate a pleasing ripened fruit is called wholesome, and so there is no fault. Ultimately neutral refers to the two unconditioned dharmas, because space and cessation not through discrimination are only neutral in nature and have no other aspect. One should think about this. If the force of arising makes bodily and verbal actions become wholesome or unwholesome, then the great elements, by the same example, should also be so. Because the actor's mind originally wishes to produce the action, and not the four great elements, the example does not hold. If so, the unmanifest karma that follows a concentrated mind is not produced by attention while in concentration, nor drawn forth by the preparatory effort of a distracted mind, being of a different kind; how does it become wholesome? Or the divine eye and ear should become wholesome; one should make an effort over this meaning. As said above, delusions cut off by seeing operate through the outer gate and so cannot give rise to manifest karma. If so, why does the sutra say that because of wrong view one gives rise to wrong thought, wrong speech, wrong action, and wrong livelihood? These are not contradictory. Why? The verse says:

等起有二種，因及彼剎那，

Arising is of two kinds: the cause and its moment,

如次第應知，名轉名隨轉。

Which, in order, should be known as "turning" and "following turning."

見斷識唯轉，唯隨轉五識，

Consciousness cut off by seeing only turns; the five consciousnesses only follow,

修斷意通二，無漏異熟非。

Cut off by cultivation, the mind extends to both; the undefiled and the ripened are not.

於轉善等性，隨轉各容三，

In turning, the wholesome nature and the rest; in following, each admits all three,

牟尼善必同，無記隨惑善。

The Sage's wholesome is surely the same; the neutral follows the delusion or the wholesome.

論曰：表無表業等起有二，謂因等起、剎那等起，在先為因故、彼剎那有故。如次初名轉，第二名隨轉。謂因等起將作業時，能引發故說名為轉。剎那等起正作業時，不相離故名為隨轉。隨轉於業有何功能？雖有先因為能引發，若無隨轉者如死業應無。若爾，無心如何發戒？諸有心者業起分明，故隨轉心於業有用。見所斷識於發表中唯能為轉，於能起表尋伺生中為資糧故不為隨轉，於外門心正起業時此無有故。又見所斷若發表色，此色則應是見所斷。若許見斷，斯有何失？是則違越阿毘達磨，又明無明不相違故。有漏業色非見所斷，如是道理應更成立。若爾大種亦應見斷，俱見斷心力所起故。無如是過失，如非善不善。或復許爾，理亦無違。不應許然，以諸大種定非見斷及非所斷，以一切種不染汙法與明無明不相違故。彼經但據前因等起而作是說，故不相違。若五識身唯作隨轉，無分別故、外門起故。修斷意識通為二種，有分別故、外門起故。一切無漏異熟生心非轉隨轉，唯在定故、不由加行任運轉故。如是即成四句差別。有轉非隨轉，謂見所斷心。有隨轉非轉，謂眼等五識。有轉亦隨轉，謂修所斷三性意識。有非轉隨轉，謂諸無漏異熟生心。轉隨轉心定同性不？此不決定。其事云何？謂前轉心若是善性，後隨轉識通善等三，不善無記隨轉亦爾。唯牟尼尊轉隨轉識，多分同性少有不同。謂轉若善心隨轉亦善，轉心若無記隨轉亦然。而或有時善隨無記轉，曾無無記為善隨轉時。以佛世尊於說法等，心或增長無萎歇故。有餘部說：諸佛世尊常在定故，心唯是善，無無記心。故契經說：

The treatise says: The arising of manifest and unmanifest karma is of two kinds, namely the causal arising and the momentary arising, because the former is the cause and the latter exists in that very moment. In order, the first is called "turning" and the second "following turning." That is, the causal arising, when one is about to act, is called "turning" because it can draw forth the action. The momentary arising, when one is acting, is called "following turning" because it is inseparable. What is the function of following turning in karma? Though an earlier cause can draw it forth, if there were no following turning, karma would be like a dead act. If so, how can a mindless person give rise to precepts? In those with mind, karma arises clearly, so the following mind is useful for karma. Consciousness cut off by seeing can only be "turning" in drawing forth manifest karma, because it is a provision in giving rise to initial and sustained thought that produce manifest karma, and is not "following turning," since it does not exist when the mind through the outer gate is actually undertaking the action. Also, if what is cut off by seeing produced manifest form, this form should be cut off by seeing. If you allow that it is cut off by seeing, what is the fault? It would violate the Abhidharma, and also because knowledge and ignorance do not contradict. Defiled karma-form is not cut off by seeing, and this reasoning should be established more. If so, the great elements should also be cut off by seeing, being produced by the force of a mind that is cut off by seeing. There is no such fault, as with what is neither wholesome nor unwholesome. Or if one allows this, the reasoning is also not contradictory. One should not allow it, because the great elements are certainly neither cut off by seeing nor not cut off, as all undefiled dharmas of every kind do not contradict knowledge or ignorance. That sutra speaks only on the basis of the earlier causal arising, and so there is no contradiction. As for the five consciousness groups, they only act as "following turning," because they are without discrimination and operate through the outer gate. Mind-consciousness cut off by cultivation extends to both kinds, because it has discrimination and operates through the outer gate. All undefiled and ripened-born minds are neither "turning" nor "following turning," because they exist only in concentration and move spontaneously, not through preparatory effort. This gives four alternatives. There is "turning" but not "following turning," namely the mind cut off by seeing. There is "following turning" but not "turning," namely the five consciousnesses, eye and the rest. There is both "turning" and "following turning," namely mind-consciousness of the three natures cut off by cultivation. There is neither "turning" nor "following turning," namely all undefiled and ripened-born minds. Are the "turning" mind and the "following turning" mind necessarily of the same nature? This is not certain. How? If the earlier "turning" mind is wholesome, the later "following turning" consciousness extends to the three natures such as the wholesome; the same holds for the unwholesome and neutral following. Only the "turning" and "following" consciousness of the Sage, the Buddha, is mostly of the same nature, with few exceptions. That is, if the turning mind is wholesome, the following mind is also wholesome; if the turning mind is neutral, the following mind is the same. But there are times when a wholesome one is followed by a neutral one, though never a neutral one followed by a wholesome one. Because the World-Honored Buddha, in teaching the Dharma and so on, has a mind that is increased and never withered. Other schools say: the Buddhas, the World-Honored Ones, are always in concentration, so their minds are only wholesome and there is no neutral mind. Hence the sutra says:

那伽行在定，那伽住在定，

The naga (dragon, a figure for the Buddha) walks in concentration, the naga stands in concentration,

那伽坐在定，那伽臥在定。

The naga sits in concentration, the naga lies down in concentration.

毘婆沙師作如是釋：此顯佛意若不樂散心，則於四威儀能常在定，然於餘位非無威儀及異熟生通果心起。諸有表業成善等性，為如轉心、為如隨轉？設爾，何失？若如轉者，則欲界中應有有覆無記表業，身見邊見能為轉故。或應簡別，非一切種見所斷心皆能為轉，若如隨轉惡無記心俱得別解脫表應非善性。於此徵難應設劬勞，應言如轉心表成善等性，然非如彼見斷轉心，修斷轉心為間隔故。若表不由隨轉心力成善等者，則不應言：彼經但據前因等起非據剎那，故欲界中定無有覆無記表業。但應說言：彼經唯據餘心所間因等起說，故見斷心雖能為轉，而於欲界定無有覆無記表業。

(The treatise continues:) The Vaibhasika masters explain this thus: This shows that, if the Buddha's intention is not to enjoy a distracted mind, then in the four postures he can always be in concentration, but at other times it is not that there are no postures or that minds of ripened-born or resultant type do not arise. When manifest karma becomes wholesome and so on, is it like the turning mind or like the following mind? Suppose so, what is the fault? If like the turning mind, there would be defiled-obscured neutral manifest karma in the desire realm, because view of self and extreme views can serve as turning. Or one should make a distinction: not every kind of mind cut off by seeing can serve as turning. If like the following mind, then an evil or neutral mind obtained together with the manifest karma of individual liberation should not be wholesome in nature. For this challenge one should make an effort and say: manifest karma becomes wholesome and so on like the turning mind, but not like that turning mind cut off by seeing, because it is separated by the turning mind cut off by cultivation. If manifest karma did not become wholesome by the force of the following mind, then one should not say it; that sutra speaks only on the basis of the earlier causal arising and not the momentary one, and so in the desire realm there is certainly no defiled-obscured neutral manifest karma. One should rather say: that sutra speaks only on the basis of causal arising separated by other mental factors, and so, though the mind cut off by seeing can serve as turning, there is certainly no defiled-obscured neutral manifest karma in the desire realm.

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by the Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under imperial decree

分別業品第四之二

Chapter 4, Analysis of Karma, Part 2

傍論已了，復應辯前表無表相。頌曰：

The digression is finished; now we should explain the earlier characteristics of manifest and unmanifest karma. The verse says:

無表三律儀，不律儀非二。

Unmanifest karma is of three kinds: discipline, non-discipline, and neither of the two.

論曰：此中無表，略說有三：一者律儀、二不律儀、三者非二謂非律儀非不律儀。能遮能滅惡戒相續故名律儀。如是律儀差別有幾？頌曰：

The treatise says: Among these, unmanifest karma is briefly of three kinds: first, discipline; second, non-discipline; third, neither of the two, namely neither discipline nor non-discipline. It is called discipline because it can restrain and extinguish the continuum of evil precepts. How many kinds of discipline are there? The verse says:

律儀別解脫，靜慮及道生。

Discipline of individual liberation, discipline born of the dhyanas, and discipline born of the path.

論曰：律儀差別，略有三種：一別解脫律儀，謂欲纏戒；二靜慮生律儀，謂色纏戒；三道生律儀，謂無漏戒。初律儀相差別云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Discipline is briefly of three kinds: first, the discipline of individual liberation, namely the precepts of the desire realm; second, the discipline born of the dhyanas, namely the precepts of the form realm; third, the discipline born of the path, namely the undefiled precepts. What are the distinctions among the characteristics of the first discipline? The verse says:

初律儀八種，實體唯有四，

The first discipline has eight kinds, but its real substance is only four,

形轉名異故，各別不相違。

Because of change of form the names differ, yet each is distinct and not contradictory.

論曰：別解脫律儀，相差別有八：一苾芻律儀、二苾芻尼律儀、三正學律儀、四勤策律儀、五勤策女律儀、六近事律儀、七近事女律儀、八近住律儀。如是八種律儀相差別，總名第一別解脫律儀。雖有八名，實體唯四：一苾芻律儀、二勤策律儀、三近事律儀、四近住律儀。唯此四種別解律儀皆有體實，相各別故。所以者何？離苾芻律儀，無別苾芻尼律儀；離勤策律儀，無別正學、勤策女律儀；離近事律儀，無別近事女律儀。云何知然？由形改轉，體雖無捨得，而名有異故。形謂形相，即男女根。由此二根男女形別，但由形轉，令諸律儀名為苾芻、苾芻尼等，謂轉根位，令本苾芻律儀名苾芻尼律儀，或苾芻尼律儀名苾芻律儀；令本勤策律儀名勤策女律儀，或勤策女律儀及正學律儀名勤策律儀；令本近事律儀名近事女律儀，或近事女律儀名近事律儀。非轉根位有捨先得得先未得律儀因緣，故四律儀非異三體。若從近事律儀受勤策律儀，復從勤策律儀受苾芻律儀，此三律儀為由增足遠離方便立別別名。如隻雙金錢及五十二十，為體各別具足頓生。三種律儀體不相雜，其相各別具足頓生。三律儀中具三離殺，乃至具足三離飲酒，餘數多少隨其所應。既爾相望同類何別？由因緣別，相望有異。其事云何？如如求受多種學處，如是如是能離多種憍逸處時，即離眾多殺等緣起。以諸遠離依因緣發，故因緣別遠離有異。若無此事，捨苾芻律儀，爾時則應三律儀皆捨，前二攝在後一中故。既不許然，故三各別。然此三種互不相違，於一身中俱時而轉，非由受後捨前律儀，勿捨苾芻戒便非近事等。近事、近住、勤策、苾芻四種律儀云何安立？頌曰：

The treatise says: The discipline of individual liberation has eight distinct characteristics: first, the discipline of a bhiksu; second, of a bhiksuni; third, of a siksamana; fourth, of a sramanera; fifth, of a sramanerika; sixth, of an upasaka; seventh, of an upasika; eighth, of one observing the fast (upavasa). These eight kinds of discipline with their different characteristics are together called the first discipline, that of individual liberation. Though there are eight names, the real substance is only four: first, the discipline of a bhiksu; second, of a sramanera; third, of an upasaka; fourth, of one observing the fast. These four kinds of individual liberation discipline each have a real substance, because their characteristics are distinct. Why? Apart from the discipline of a bhiksu, there is no separate discipline of a bhiksuni; apart from the discipline of a sramanera, there is no separate discipline of a siksamana or sramanerika; apart from the discipline of an upasaka, there is no separate discipline of an upasika. How is this known? Because when the form changes, though the substance is neither lost nor gained, the name differs. "Form" means the physical mark, that is, the male or female organ. Through these two organs the male and female forms differ, and only because of the change of form are the disciplines called bhiksu, bhiksuni and so on. That is, at the time of a change of sex, the original bhiksu discipline is called bhiksuni discipline, or the bhiksuni discipline is called bhiksu discipline; the original sramanera discipline is called sramanerika discipline, or the sramanerika discipline and siksamana discipline are called sramanera discipline; the original upasaka discipline is called upasika discipline, or the upasika discipline is called upasaka discipline. At the time of a change of sex there is no cause for losing the discipline obtained earlier or for obtaining a discipline not yet obtained, and so the four disciplines are not three different substances. If one receives the sramanera discipline from the upasaka discipline, and then receives the bhiksu discipline from the sramanera discipline, these three disciplines are given different names by the expedient of increased renunciation, as with a double gold coin and fifty or twenty. They have separate substances, and each arises complete at once. The three kinds of discipline are not mixed in substance; their characteristics are distinct and they arise complete at once. Among the three disciplines there are three abstentions from killing, and up to three abstentions from intoxicants, and the other numbers, many or few, accordingly. Since this is so, what is the difference among them in relation to each other of the same kind? They differ by cause and condition. How so? As one seeks to receive many training rules, so one is able to abstain from many places of heedlessness, and one thereby abstains from the arising conditions of many acts such as killing. Because abstentions arise depending on causes and conditions, they differ by cause and condition. If this were not so, then when one gave up the bhiksu discipline, all three disciplines should be given up at that time, the first two being contained in the last. Since that is not accepted, the three are separate. But these three are not mutually contradictory and operate together at once in a single body; it is not that receiving a later one gives up the earlier discipline, lest giving up the bhiksu precepts would mean one is no longer an upasaka and so on. How are the four disciplines of upasaka, fast, sramanera, and bhiksu established? The verse says:

受離五八十，一切所應離，

Receive abstention from five, eight, ten, and all that should be abstained from,

立近事近住，勤策及苾芻。

And establish upasaka, fast, sramanera, and bhiksu.

論曰：應知此中如數次第，依四遠離立四律儀。謂受離五所應遠離，安立第一近事律儀。何等名為五所應離？一者殺生、二不與取、三欲邪行、四虛誑語、五飲諸酒。若受離八所應遠離，安立第二近住律儀。何等名為八所應離？一者殺生、二不與取、三非梵行、四虛誑語、五飲諸酒、六塗飾香鬘舞歌觀聽、七眠坐高廣嚴麗床座、八食非時食。若受離十所應遠離，安立第三勤策律儀。何等名為十所應離？謂於前八塗飾香鬘舞歌觀聽開為二種，復加受畜金銀等寶以為第十。若受離一切應離身語業，安立第四苾芻律儀。別解律儀名差別者，頌曰：

The treatise says: It should be known that here, in numerical order, the four disciplines are established depending on four abstentions. That is, receiving abstention from the five things to be abstained from establishes the first, the upasaka discipline. What are the five things to be abstained from? First, killing; second, taking what is not given; third, sexual misconduct; fourth, false speech; fifth, drinking intoxicants. Receiving abstention from the eight things to be abstained from establishes the second, the discipline of the fast. What are the eight? First, killing; second, taking what is not given; third, non-celibate conduct; fourth, false speech; fifth, drinking intoxicants; sixth, adorning oneself with perfume and garlands, and dancing, singing, and watching or listening to them; seventh, sleeping or sitting on high, wide, and ornate beds and seats; eighth, eating at the wrong time. Receiving abstention from the ten things to be abstained from establishes the third, the sramanera discipline. What are the ten? The sixth of the former eight, adorning oneself with perfume and garlands and dancing, singing, and watching or listening, is divided into two, and the receiving and keeping of gold, silver and other treasures is added as the tenth. Receiving abstention from all that bodily and verbal action should abstain from establishes the fourth, the bhiksu discipline. The various names of the individual liberation discipline are given in the verse:

俱得名屍羅，妙行業律儀，

Obtained together, they are called morality (sila), good conduct, karma, and discipline,

唯初表無表，名別解業道。

Only the first manifest and unmanifest are called individual liberation and course of action.

論曰：能平險業故名屍羅。訓釋詞者，謂清涼故。如伽他言：受持戒樂，身無熱惱，故名屍羅。智者稱揚，故名妙行。所作自體，故名為業。豈不無表亦名不作，如何今說所作自體？有慚恥者受無表力不造眾惡，故名不作。表思所造，得所作名。有餘釋言：是作因故、是作果故，名作無失。能防身語，故名律儀。如是應知，別解脫戒通初後位無差別名，唯初剎那表及無表，得別解脫及業道名。謂受戒時初表無表，別別棄捨種種惡故。依初別捨義，立別解脫名。即於爾時所作究竟，依業暢義立業道名，故初剎那名別解脫，亦得名曰別解律儀，亦得名為根本業道。從第二念乃至未捨，不名別解脫，名別解律儀；不名業道，名為後起。誰成就何律儀？頌曰：

The treatise says: It is called sila because it can level what is rugged. The etymological explanation is that it is cool and refreshing. As the gatha says: One who holds the precepts is happy, the body without fever or distress, and so it is called sila. The wise praise it, and so it is called good conduct. It is one's own substance that is made, so it is called karma. But is unmanifest karma not also called non-doing? Why is it now said to be one's own substance that is made? Those who have shame and embarrassment, by the force of receiving unmanifest karma, do not commit various evils, and so it is called non-doing. What is produced by manifest karma and volition obtains the name of what is made. Other explanations say: since it is the cause of making and the effect of making, calling it "made" is without fault. Because it guards the body and speech, it is called discipline. Thus one should know that the precepts of individual liberation extend from the first to the last stage without a difference in name, but only the first moment's manifest and unmanifest karma obtain the names of individual liberation and course of action. That is, at the time of receiving the precepts, the first manifest and unmanifest karma give up each of the various evils separately. Because of the meaning of the first separate renunciation, the name "individual liberation" is established. At that very time, the deed is completed, and relying on the meaning of karma that has come through, the name "course of action" is established. Thus the first moment is called individual liberation, and also obtains the name of individual liberation discipline, and also the name of fundamental course of action. From the second moment until it is given up, it is not called individual liberation but is called individual liberation discipline; it is not called a course of action but is called what arises afterward. Who possesses which discipline? The verse says:

八成別解脫，得靜慮聖者，

The eight possess individual liberation; those who obtain the dhyanas, and the noble ones,

成靜慮道生，後二隨心轉。

Possess the dhyana-born and path-born; the latter two follow the mind.

論曰：八眾皆成就別解脫律儀，謂從苾芻乃至近住。外道無有所受戒耶？雖有，不名別解脫戒。由彼所受無有功能永脫諸惡依著有故。靜慮生者，謂此律儀從靜慮生、或依靜慮。若得靜慮者，定成此律儀。諸靜慮邊亦名靜慮，如近村邑得村邑名故。有說言於此村邑有稻田等，此亦應然。道生律儀聖者成就，此復有二：謂學、無學。於前分別俱有因中說二律儀是隨心轉，於此三內其二者何？謂靜慮生及道生二，非別解脫。所以者何？異心無心亦恆轉故。靜慮、無漏二種律儀，亦名斷律儀。依何位建立？頌曰：

The treatise says: All eight groups possess the discipline of individual liberation, from bhiksu up to the fast. Do non-Buddhist practitioners not have any precepts they have received? Though they have, they are not called individual liberation precepts, because what they receive has no power to free one forever from evils, and because they involve attachment. Dhyana-born means that this discipline arises from the dhyanas or depends on the dhyanas. One who has obtained the dhyanas certainly possesses this discipline. The edges of the dhyanas are also called dhyana, as near a village one obtains the name of the village. Some say that in this village there are rice fields and so on; this should be the same. The path-born discipline is possessed by noble ones, and it is of two kinds, namely the one still learning and the one beyond learning. In the earlier discussion of co-existent causes, it was said that two disciplines follow the mind; which two among these three? They are the dhyana-born and path-born, not individual liberation. Why? Because they operate constantly even in a different mind or in no mind. The dhyana and undefiled disciplines are also called the discipline of cutting off. On what stage are they established? The verse says:

未至九無間，俱生二名斷。

The nine unobstructed paths of the preliminary stage, those arising together, are called cutting off.

論曰：未至定中九無間道，俱生靜慮無漏律儀，以能永斷欲纏惡戒及能起惑名斷律儀。由此或有靜慮律儀非斷律儀，應作四句。第一句者，除未至定九無間道有漏律儀，所餘有漏靜慮律儀。第二句者，依未至定九無間道無漏律儀。第三句者，依未至定九無間道有漏律儀。第四句者，除未至定九無間道無漏律儀，所餘一切無漏律儀。如是或有無漏律儀非斷律儀，應作四句，準前四句如應當知。若爾，世尊所說略戒：

The treatise says: In the nine unobstructed paths in the preliminary concentration, the dhyana and undefiled disciplines arising together are called the discipline of cutting off, because they can permanently cut off the evil precepts of the desire realm and the delusions that can arise. Thus there may be dhyana discipline that is not the discipline of cutting off, and one should make four alternatives. The first: apart from the defiled discipline in the nine unobstructed paths of the preliminary concentration, the other defiled dhyana discipline. The second: the undefiled discipline in the nine unobstructed paths of the preliminary concentration. The third: the defiled discipline in the nine unobstructed paths of the preliminary concentration. The fourth: apart from the undefiled discipline in the nine unobstructed paths of the preliminary concentration, all other undefiled discipline. Likewise there may be undefiled discipline that is not the discipline of cutting off, and one should make four alternatives, to be understood by following the previous four. If so, the abridged precept spoken by the World-Honored One:

身律儀善哉，善哉語律儀，

Discipline of the body is good, good is discipline of speech,

意律儀善哉，善哉遍律儀。

Discipline of the mind is good, good is discipline in everything.

又契經說：應善守護、應善安住眼根律儀。此意根律儀，以何為自性？此二自性非無表色。若爾，是何？頌曰：

And the sutra says: One should well guard and well abide in the discipline of the eye faculty. What is the intrinsic nature of this discipline of the mind faculty? The intrinsic nature of these two is not unmanifest form. If so, what is it? The verse says:

正知正念合，名意根律儀。

Right knowledge and right mindfulness combined are called the discipline of the mind faculty.

論曰：為顯如是二種律儀，俱以正知正念為體，故列名已復說合言，謂意律儀慧念為體，即合二種為根律儀。故離合言顯勿如次。今應思擇，表及無表誰成就何？齊何時分？且辯成無表律儀不律儀。頌曰：

The treatise says: To show that these two kinds of discipline both have right knowledge and right mindfulness as their essence, after listing the names the word "combined" is added again; that is, the discipline of the mind has wisdom and mindfulness as its essence, and the two combined are the discipline of the faculties. The words "separate" and "combined" are used so that one does not take them in order. Now we should examine who possesses which manifest and unmanifest karma and for what duration. First, let us explain possession of unmanifest discipline and non-discipline. The verse says:

住別解無表，未捨恆成現，

One abiding in individual liberation, until it is given up, constantly possesses the present unmanifest karma,

剎那後成過，不律儀亦然。

After the first moment possesses the past; non-discipline is also like this.

得靜慮律儀，恆成就過未，

One who obtains dhyana discipline constantly possesses it in past and future,

聖初除過去，住定道成中。

The noble one at first excludes the past; one abiding in concentration and the path possesses it in the middle.

論曰：住別解脫補特伽羅，未捨以來恆成現世，此別解脫律儀無表。初剎那後亦成過去，前未捨言遍流至後，無散無表有成未來，不隨心色勢微劣故。如說安住別解律儀，住不律儀應知亦爾，謂至未捨惡戒以來恆成現世，惡戒無表初剎那後亦成過去。諸有獲得靜慮律儀，乃至未捨恆成過未，餘生所失過去定律儀，今初剎那必還得彼故。一切聖者無漏律儀，過去未來亦恆成就，有差別者，謂初剎那必成未來非成過去，此類聖道先未起故。若有現住靜慮彼道，如次成現在靜慮道律儀，非出觀時有成現在。已辯安住善惡律儀，住中雲何？頌曰：

The treatise says: A person abiding in individual liberation constantly possesses, from the time before giving up, the present unmanifest karma of this individual liberation discipline. After the first moment he also possesses the past; the phrase "before giving up" extends to what follows. There is no scattered unmanifest karma; there is possession of the future, because the unmanifest form that does not follow the mind is weak in force. As is said of abiding in individual liberation discipline, one should know it is the same for abiding in non-discipline: that is, until the evil precepts are given up, one constantly possesses the present, and after the first moment of unmanifest evil precepts one also possesses the past. Those who obtain dhyana discipline constantly possess the past and future until they give it up, because in other births the past concentration discipline that was lost is certainly regained in this first moment. The noble ones' undefiled discipline is also constantly possessed in past and future, with a difference: at the first moment one certainly possesses the future but not the past, because this kind of noble path has not arisen before. If one is currently abiding in dhyana and the path, one possesses in order the present dhyana discipline and path discipline, but one does not possess the present when emerging from contemplation. The wholesome and evil disciplines in which one abides have been explained; what about what is in between? The verse says:

住中有無表，初成中後二。

In the middle there is unmanifest karma; it is possessed at first, and in the middle and later two.

論曰：言住中者，謂非律儀非不律儀，彼所起業未必一切皆有無表。若有無表，即是善戒或是惡戒種類所攝，彼初剎那但成現在。然現在世處過未中，故以成中說成現在。初剎那後未捨以來，恆成過現二世無表。若有安住律不律儀，亦有成惡善無表不。設有成就，為經幾時？頌曰：

The treatise says: By "in between" is meant those who are neither in discipline nor in non-discipline; the karma they produce does not necessarily all have unmanifest karma. If there is unmanifest karma, it is included in the class of wholesome or evil precepts, and in its first moment it is only possessed in the present. However, since the present is in the middle between past and future, it is said to be possessed in the present among those possessed in the middle. After the first moment, until it is given up, one constantly possesses the unmanifest karma of the past and present. If one abides in discipline or non-discipline, is there also possession of evil or good unmanifest karma? Supposing one possesses it, for how long? The verse says:

住律不律儀，起染淨無表，

Abiding in discipline or non-discipline, defiled or pure unmanifest karma arises,

初成中後二，至染淨勢終。

Possessed at first, in the middle and in the last two, until the defiled or pure force ends.

論曰：若住律儀，由勝煩惱作殺縛等諸不善業，由此便發不善無表；住不律儀，由淳淨信作禮佛等諸勝善業，由此亦發諸善無表。乃至此二心未斷來，所發無表恆時相續，然其初念唯成現在，自茲以後通成過現。已辯無表，成表云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: If one abides in discipline, and by powerful afflictions one does unwholesome deeds such as killing and binding, one thereby gives rise to unwholesome unmanifest karma; if one abides in non-discipline, and by pure faith one does supreme wholesome deeds such as paying homage to the Buddha, one thereby also gives rise to wholesome unmanifest karma. As long as these two minds are not cut off, the unmanifest karma they gave rise to continues constantly, but its first moment is possessed only in the present, and from then on it is possessed in both past and present. Unmanifest karma has been explained; how is manifest karma possessed? The verse says:

表正作成中，後成過非未，

Manifest karma is possessed while being done and in the middle, later as past, not as future,

有覆及無覆，唯成就現在。

Obscured and unobscured manifest karma are possessed only in the present.

論曰：諸有安住律不律儀及住中者，乃至正作諸表業來恆成現表。初剎那後至未捨來恆成過去，必無成就未來表者，如無表釋。有覆無覆二無記表，定無有能成就過未，法力既劣得力亦微，是故無能逆追成者。此法力劣誰之所為？是心所為。若爾，有覆無記心等勿成過未。此責非理，表昧鈍故、依他起故；心等不然，無記表業從劣心起，其力倍劣彼能起心，故表與心成有差別。如前所說住不律儀，此不律儀名差別者，頌曰：

The treatise says: Those who abide in discipline, non-discipline, or the middle constantly possess the present manifest karma as long as they are doing manifest actions. After the first moment until it is given up, they constantly possess the past. There is certainly no possession of future manifest karma, as explained for unmanifest karma. The two neutral manifest karmas, obscured and unobscured, certainly cannot be possessed in the past or future, since the force of the dharma is weak and the force of obtaining it is also slight, and so it cannot be possessed retroactively. Whose act makes the force of the dharma weak? It is the act of the mind. If so, the obscured neutral mind and so on should not be possessed in past and future. This objection is unreasonable, because manifest karma is dull and arises dependent on other things; the mind and the rest are not so, and the neutral manifest karma arises from a weak mind, its force being doubly weak than the mind that arises it; so there is a difference between manifest karma and mind in possession. As stated above, in abiding in non-discipline, the names of this non-discipline are distinguished in the verse:

惡行惡戒業，業道不律儀。

Evil conduct, evil precepts, karma, course of action, and non-discipline.

論曰：此惡行等五種異名，是不律儀名之差別，是諸智者所訶厭故、果非愛故立惡行名。障淨屍羅故名惡戒、身語所造故名為業。根本所攝故名業道。不禁身語名不律儀。然業道名唯目初念，通初後位立餘四名，或成表業非無表等，應作四句。其事云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: These five synonyms such as evil conduct are distinct names for non-discipline: it is called evil conduct because it is detested by the wise and its fruit is not loved; it is called evil precepts because it obstructs pure morality; it is called karma because it is made by body and speech; it is called course of action because it is included in the fundamental. Not restraining body and speech is called non-discipline. However, the name "course of action" refers only to the first moment, while the other four names are established across the first and later stages. Is there possession of manifest karma but not of unmanifest karma, and so on? One should make four alternatives. How so? The verse says:

成表非無表，住中劣思作，

Possessing manifest but not unmanifest: those in the middle doing with weak volition,

捨未生表聖，成無表非表。

Noble ones who have given up or not yet produced manifest karma possess unmanifest but not manifest.

論曰：唯成就表非無表者，謂住非律儀非不律儀，以微劣思造善造惡，唯發表業尚無無表，況無記思所發表業，除有依福及成業道。唯成無表非表業者，謂易生聖補特伽羅，表業未生或生已捨，俱成非句如應當知。說住律儀不律儀等成就表業無表業已，此諸律儀由何而得？頌曰：

The treatise says: Possessing only manifest and not unmanifest karma refers to those who are neither in discipline nor in non-discipline and who do good or evil with weak volition, giving rise only to manifest karma without unmanifest karma, much less the manifest karma given rise to by neutral volition, apart from meritorious deeds with a basis and the completed course of action. Possessing only unmanifest and not manifest karma refers to noble persons who are easily reborn, whose manifest karma has not yet arisen or has been given up after arising; the neither-alternative should be understood as both lacking. Having explained the possession of manifest and unmanifest karma by those abiding in discipline, non-discipline, and so on, how are these disciplines obtained? The verse says:

定生得定地，彼聖得道生，

The dhyana-born is obtained by obtaining the concentration ground; the noble one obtains the path-born,

別解脫律儀，得由他教等。

The discipline of individual liberation is obtained by the instruction of others and so on.

論曰：靜慮律儀由得有漏根本近分靜慮地心，爾時便得，與心俱故。無漏律儀由得無漏根本近分靜慮地心，爾時便得，亦心俱故。彼聲為顯前靜慮心。復說聖言簡取無漏，六靜慮地有無漏心，謂未至、中間及四根本定，非三近分，如後當辯。別解脫律儀由他教等得，能教他者說名為他，從如是他教力發戒，故說此戒由他教得。此復二種，謂從僧伽、補特伽羅有差別故。從僧伽得者，謂苾芻苾芻尼及正學戒。從補特伽羅得者，謂餘五種戒。諸毘柰耶毘婆沙師，說有十種得具戒法，為攝彼故復說等言。何者為十？一由自然，謂佛獨覺。二由得入正性離生，謂五苾芻。三由佛命善來苾芻，謂耶舍等。四由信受佛為大師，謂大迦葉。五由善巧酬答所問，謂蘇陀夷。六由敬受八尊重法，謂大生主。七由遣使，謂法授尼。八由持律為第五人，謂於邊國。九由十眾，謂於中國。十由三說歸佛法僧，謂六十賢部共集受具戒。如是所得別解律儀，非必定依表業而發。又此所說別解律儀，應齊幾時要期而受？頌曰：

The treatise says: Dhyana discipline, by obtaining a defiled fundamental or proximate dhyana-ground mind, is obtained at that very time, since it arises with the mind. Undefiled discipline, by obtaining an undefiled fundamental or proximate dhyana-ground mind, is obtained at that very time, also since it arises with the mind. The word "that" shows the former dhyana mind. The word "noble" is then added to select the undefiled. In the six dhyana grounds there is undefiled mind, namely the preliminary concentration, the intermediate dhyana, and the four fundamental concentrations, but not the three proximate ones, as will be explained later. The discipline of individual liberation is obtained by the instruction of others and so on; one who can instruct others is called "other," and the precepts arise by the force of that other's instruction, so it is said that these precepts are obtained by the instruction of others. This is again of two kinds, namely obtained from the Sangha and from an individual, since there is a difference. Obtained from the Sangha are the precepts of bhiksu, bhiksuni, and siksamana. Obtained from an individual are the other five kinds of precepts. The Vinaya Vaibhasika masters say that there are ten ways of obtaining the full precepts, and to include them the word "and so on" is added. What are the ten? First, by oneself naturally, namely the Buddha and the pratyekabuddhas. Second, by entering the correct nature and leaving birth, namely the five bhiksus. Third, by the Buddha's command "Come, bhiksu," namely Yasas and the others. Fourth, by faithfully accepting the Buddha as great teacher, namely Mahakasyapa. Fifth, by skillfully answering questions, namely Sudinna. Sixth, by respectfully accepting the eight important rules, namely Mahaprajapati. Seventh, by sending a messenger, namely Dharmadinna. Eighth, by the Vinaya holder as the fifth person, namely in border countries. Ninth, by a group of ten, namely in central countries. Tenth, by thrice reciting refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, namely the sixty worthy ones who gathered to receive full precepts. The individual liberation discipline obtained in this way does not necessarily arise depending on manifest karma. Furthermore, for the individual liberation discipline spoken of here, for how long should one receive it with a fixed term? The verse says:

別解脫律儀，盡壽或晝夜。

The discipline of individual liberation is for life or for a day and night.

論曰：七眾所持別解脫戒，唯應盡壽要期而受。近住所持別解脫戒，唯一晝夜要期而受。此時定爾。所以者何？戒時邊際但有二種：一壽命邊際、二晝夜邊際，重說晝夜為半月等。時名是何法？謂諸行增語。於四洲中光位闇位，如其次第立晝夜名，二邊際中盡壽可爾。於命終後雖有要期而不能生別解脫戒，依身別故，別依身中無加行故、無憶念故。一晝夜後或五或十晝夜等中受近住戒。何法為障，令彼眾多近住律儀非亦得起？必應有法能為障礙，以薄伽梵於契經中說近住律儀唯一晝夜故。於如是義應共尋思，為佛正觀一晝夜後理無容起近住律儀，故於經中說一晝夜？為觀所化根難調者，旦應授與一晝夜戒？依何理教作如是言？過此戒生，不違理故。毘婆沙者作如是言：曾無契經說過晝夜有別受得近住律儀，是故我宗不許斯義。依何邊際得不律儀？頌曰：

The treatise says: The individual liberation precepts held by the seven groups should be received only with a term of the whole life. The individual liberation precepts held by one observing the fast should be received only with a term of one day and night. This period is certainly so. Why? The boundaries of the time of precepts are only of two kinds: the boundary of life and the boundary of a day and night; the day and night restated is the half month and so on. What dharma is the name of time? It is a designation for formations. In the four continents, the stage of light and the stage of darkness are named day and night in order, and of the two boundaries, the whole life can be so. After death, even with a fixed term, the individual liberation precepts cannot arise, because the body differs, and because in a different body there is no preparatory effort and no remembrance. After one day and night, can one receive the fast precepts for five or ten days and nights and so on? What dharma is the obstacle that prevents those many fast disciplines from arising? There must be a dharma that can obstruct, because the Bhagavan said in the sutra that the fast discipline is only for one day and night. This meaning should be considered jointly: is it that the Buddha correctly observed that after one day and night it is unreasonable that fast discipline could arise, and so said in the sutra one day and night? Or is it that he observed that those to be taught had faculties hard to tame and so gave them the precepts of one day and night at first? On what reasoning and teaching is this said? It is that precepts arising beyond this do not contradict reasoning. The Vaibhasika master says: There is never a sutra that says that one can separately receive and obtain fast discipline beyond a day and night, and so our school does not allow this meaning. On what boundary is non-discipline obtained? The verse says:

惡戒無晝夜，謂非如善受。

Evil precepts have no day and night, as they are not received like the wholesome.

論曰：要期盡壽造諸惡業得不律儀，非一晝夜如近住戒。所以者何？謂此非如善戒受故。謂必無有立限對師受不律儀如近住戒，我一晝夜定受不律儀，此是智人所訶厭業故。若爾，亦無有立限對師我乃至命終定受惡戒，勿盡形壽得不律儀。雖無對師要期盡壽作諸惡業，由起畢竟壞善意樂得不律儀，非起暫時壞善意樂無師令彼得不律儀，故不律儀無一晝夜。然近住戒，由現對師要期受力，雖無畢竟壞惡意樂而得律儀，設有對師要期暫受不律儀者亦必應得。然未曾見，故不立有。經部師說：如善律儀無別實物名為無表，此不律儀亦應非實。即欲造惡不善意樂相續不捨名不律儀，由此後時善心雖起而名成就不律儀者，以不捨此阿世耶故。說一晝夜近住律儀，欲正受時當如何受？頌曰：

The treatise says: One obtains non-discipline by committing various evil deeds with a fixed term of the whole life, not one day and night like the fast precepts. Why? Because this is not received like wholesome precepts. That is, there is certainly no one who sets a limit and before a teacher receives non-discipline, saying like fast precepts, "I will surely receive non-discipline for one day and night"; this is a deed detested by the wise. If so, there is also no one who sets a limit and before a teacher says, "I will receive evil precepts until death," lest he obtain non-discipline for his whole life. Though there is no taking of a fixed term for life before a teacher to commit evil deeds, by giving rise to a resolve to ultimately destroy the wholesome, one obtains non-discipline; one who gives rise to a resolve to destroy the wholesome only for a short time, without a teacher, does not obtain non-discipline, and so non-discipline has no day and night. However, the fast discipline, by the force of receiving a fixed term directly before a teacher, though without the resolve to ultimately destroy evil, obtains discipline; if there were one who before a teacher briefly received non-discipline for a fixed term, he should also obtain it. But since this has never been seen, it is not established as existing. The Sautrantika masters say: As wholesome discipline has no separate real thing called unmanifest karma, this non-discipline should also not be real. That is, the continuum of unwholesome intention that wishes to commit evil, not abandoned, is called non-discipline; therefore, though a wholesome mind may later arise, one is called possessing non-discipline because one has not abandoned this asaya (intention). When one wishes to properly receive the fast discipline of a day and night, how should one receive it? The verse says:

近住於晨旦，下座從師受，

The fast is received at dawn, from a teacher on a lower seat,

隨教說具支，離嚴飾晝夜。

Following the instruction and reciting the complete limbs, abstaining from adornment for a day and night.

論曰：近住律儀於晨旦受，謂受此戒要日出時，此戒要經一晝夜故。諸有先作如是要期，謂我恆於月八日等，必當受此近住律儀。若旦有礙緣，齋竟亦得受。言下座者，謂在師前居卑劣座，或蹲或跪曲躬合掌，唯除有病，若不恭敬不發律儀。此必從師，無容自受。以後若遇諸犯戒緣，由愧戒師，能不違犯。受此戒者，應隨師教受者後說，勿前勿俱，如是方成從師教受，異此授受二俱不成。具受八支方成近住，隨有所闕近住不成。受此律儀必離嚴飾，憍逸處故。常嚴身具不必須捨，緣彼不能生甚憍逸如新異故。受此律儀必須晝夜，謂至明旦日初出時。若不如斯依法受者，但生妙行不得律儀。又若如斯盡晝夜受，具制屠獵姦盜有情，近住律儀深成有用。言近住者，謂此律儀近阿羅漢住，以隨學彼故。有說：此近盡壽戒住。如是律儀或名長養，長養薄少善根有情，令其善根漸增多故。如有頌言：

The treatise says: The fast discipline is received at dawn, which means that to receive these precepts one must do so at sunrise, because these precepts must last for a day and night. For those who have previously made such a fixed resolve, saying "I shall always on the eighth day of the month and so on surely receive this fast discipline," if there is an obstacle at dawn, one may also receive it after the meal. "Lower seat" means to sit in front of the teacher on a low seat, either squatting or kneeling with bent body and joined palms, except in case of illness; if one is not respectful, discipline does not arise. One must receive it from a teacher, and one cannot receive it by oneself. Afterward, if one meets various occasions for breaking the precepts, because of shame before the teacher one can avoid violating them. One who receives these precepts should repeat after the teacher's instruction, not before and not together; in this way it is established as received from the teacher's instruction, and otherwise neither giving nor receiving is established. One must receive all eight limbs for the fast to be complete, and if any is missing, the fast is not complete. In receiving this discipline one must abstain from adornment, a place of heedlessness. Ordinary body ornaments one regularly wears need not be given up, since they do not give rise to great heedlessness like something new or unusual. In receiving this discipline it must last a day and night, namely until the morning when the sun first rises. If one receives it not according to the Dharma in this way, one only gives rise to good conduct and does not obtain discipline. Moreover, if one receives it in this way for a full day and night, it is deeply useful for restraining butchers, hunters, adulterers, thieves, and other beings. "Fast" (upavasa) means that this discipline dwells near the arhats, because one follows and learns from them. Some say: this is near the lifelong precepts. This discipline is also called nourishing, because it nourishes beings with few and weak wholesome roots so that their wholesome roots gradually increase. As a verse says:

由此能長養，自他善淨心，

By this one can nourish the pure wholesome minds of oneself and others,

是故薄伽梵，說此名長養。

Therefore the Bhagavan called this nourishing.

何緣受此必具八支？頌曰：

For what reason must one who receives this receive all eight limbs? The verse says:

戒不逸禁支，四一三如次，

Precepts, non-heedlessness, and prohibitions as limbs: four, one, and three in order,

為防諸性罪，失念及憍逸。

In order to guard against natural offenses, loss of mindfulness, and heedlessness.

論曰：八中前四是屍羅支，謂離殺生至虛誑語，由此四種離性罪故。次有一種是不放逸支，謂離飲諸酒生放逸處。雖受屍羅，若飲諸酒則心放逸，犯屍羅故。後有三種是禁約支，謂離塗飾香鬘乃至食非時食，以能隨順厭離心故。何緣具受如是三支？若不具支，便不能離性罪失念憍逸過失。謂初離殺至虛誑語能防性罪，離貪瞋痴所起殺等諸惡業故。次離飲酒能防失念，以飲酒時能令忘失應不應作諸事業故。後離三種能防憍逸，以若受用種種香鬘高廣床座習近歌舞心便憍舉尋即毀戒，由遠彼故心便離憍。若有能持依時食者，以能遮止恆食時故，便憶自受近住律儀，能於世間深生厭離。若非時食二事俱無，數食能令心縱逸故。有餘師說：離非時食名為齋體，餘有八種說名齋支，塗飾香鬘舞歌觀聽分為二故。若作此執，便違契經。經中說離非時食已，便作是說：此第八支我今隨聖阿羅漢學，隨行隨作。若爾，有何別齋體而說此八名齋支？總摽齋號，別說為支，以別成總得支名故。如車眾分及四支軍五支散等，齋戒八支應知亦爾。毘婆沙師作如是說：離非時食是齋亦齋支，所餘七支是齋支非齋。如正見是道亦道支，餘七支是道支非道。擇法覺是覺亦覺支，餘六支是覺支非覺。三摩地是靜慮亦靜慮支，所餘支是靜慮支非靜慮。如是所說不應正理，不可正見等，即正見等支。若謂前生正見等為後生正見等支，則初剎那聖道等應不具有八支等。為唯近事得受近住、為餘亦有受近住耶？頌曰：

The treatise says: Of the eight, the first four are the limb of moral discipline (sila), namely abstaining from killing up to false speech, because these four are abstentions from naturally evil acts. The next one is the limb of non-negligence, namely abstaining from drinking intoxicating liquor, which gives rise to a state of negligence; even if one has undertaken moral discipline, drinking liquor makes the mind negligent and one violates the discipline. The last three are the limbs of restraint, namely abstaining from adorning oneself with ointments, perfumes and garlands, and so on up to eating at the wrong time, because they accord with a mind of aversion and detachment. For what reason are all these limbs undertaken together? If the limbs are not complete, one cannot avoid the faults of naturally evil acts, loss of mindfulness, and arrogance with negligence. The first abstentions, from killing up to false speech, guard against naturally evil acts, because killing and the like are evil actions arising from greed, hatred and delusion. The next, abstaining from liquor, guards against loss of mindfulness, because when one drinks one forgets what should and should not be done. The last three guard against arrogance and negligence, because if one enjoys various perfumes and garlands, high and wide beds and seats, and becomes familiar with song and dance, the mind becomes arrogant and elated and one soon breaks the precepts; by staying far from these, the mind is free of arrogance. If one is able to keep to eating at the proper time, then since this prevents constant eating, one recalls the restraint of the fast one has undertaken and can develop deep aversion toward the world. Eating at the wrong time has neither of these two benefits, and frequent eating makes the mind loose and negligent. Some other masters say: Abstaining from eating at the wrong time is the essence of the fast, and the other eight are called limbs of the fast, since adorning with ointments, perfumes and garlands is distinguished from watching and listening to dance and song and so counted as two. If one holds this view, it contradicts the sutra. In the sutra, after speaking of abstaining from eating at the wrong time, it says: This eighth limb I now follow the example of the holy arhats, following and practising it. If so, what separate essence of the fast is there that these eight should be called limbs of the fast? The name of the fast is given in general, and the limbs are spoken of separately; the limbs are so called because separately they make up the whole, like the parts of a carriage, the four limbs of an army, or the five parts of a scattered set. The eight limbs of the fasting precepts should be understood in the same way. The Vibhasa masters speak thus: Abstaining from eating at the wrong time is both the fast and a limb of the fast, while the other seven limbs are limbs of the fast but not the fast. Just as right view is both the path and a limb of the path, while the other seven are limbs of the path but not the path; the enlightenment factor of discrimination of dharmas is both enlightenment and a limb of enlightenment, while the other six are limbs of enlightenment but not enlightenment; and samadhi is both meditative absorption and a limb of meditative absorption, while the other limbs are limbs of absorption but not absorption. What is said in this way is not correct reasoning, since right view and the like cannot themselves be limbs of right view and the like. If one says that earlier-arisen right view and the like are limbs of later-arisen right view and the like, then the first moment of the holy path and so on would not have eight limbs. Can only laymen undertake the one-day precepts, or can others also undertake them? The verse says:

近住餘亦有，不受三歸無。

Others can also undertake the one-day precepts; without taking the three refuges, they cannot.

論曰：諸有未受近事律儀，一晝夜中歸依三寶，說三歸已受近住戒，彼亦受得近住律儀。異此則無，除不知者。如契經說：佛告大名：諸有在家白衣男子男根成就，歸佛法僧起殷淨心，發誠諦語自稱我是鄔波索迦，願尊憶持慈悲護念，齊是名曰鄔波索迦。為但受三歸即成近事？外國諸師說：唯此即成。迦濕彌羅國諸論師言：離近事律儀則非近事。若爾，應與此經相違。此不相違，已發戒故。何時發戒？頌曰：

The treatise says: Those who have not yet undertaken the restraint of a lay follower, who take refuge in the Three Jewels for a day and a night and, having spoken the three refuges, undertake the one-day precepts, also obtain the restraint of the one-day precepts. Otherwise they do not, except for those who do not know. As a sutra says: The Buddha told Mahanama: When a layman, a man in white with the male organ complete, takes refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha with a deeply pure mind and speaks a sincere and truthful word, saying of himself, I am an upasaka (lay follower), may the Venerable remember and uphold me with compassion and care, up to this point he is called an upasaka. Does one become a lay follower simply by taking the three refuges? Foreign masters say: Just this makes one a lay follower. The masters of Kashmir say: Apart from the restraint of a lay follower, one is not a lay follower. If so, this would contradict the sutra. It does not contradict, because the precepts have already been generated. When are the precepts generated? The verse says:

稱近事發戒，說如苾芻等。

Calling oneself a lay follower generates the precepts, as with the bhikshu and others.

論曰：起殷淨心發誠諦語，自稱我是鄔波索迦，願尊憶持慈悲護念。爾時即發近事律儀。稱近事等言，便發律儀故。以經復說：我從今時乃至命終捨生言故。此經意說捨殺生等，略去殺等但說捨生，故於前時已得五戒。彼雖已得近事律儀，為令了知所應學處故，復為說離殺生等五種戒相令識堅持。如得苾芻具足戒已，說重學處令識堅持。勤策亦然。此亦應爾，是故近事必具律儀。頌曰：

The treatise says: One gives rise to a deeply pure mind, speaks a sincere and truthful word, and says of oneself, I am an upasaka, may the Venerable remember and uphold me with compassion and care. At that moment one generates the restraint of a lay follower, because the restraint is generated by the words calling oneself a lay follower and so on. For the sutra further says: From now until the end of my life I give up life; this sutra means giving up killing and the like, and merely omits killing and so on and speaks only of giving up life, so the five precepts were already obtained at the earlier time. Although the person has already obtained the restraint of a lay follower, in order to let him understand the trainings he should observe, the five kinds of precepts, abstaining from killing and so on, are explained again so that he recognizes and firmly keeps them. This is like a bhikshu who, after receiving full ordination, is taught the grave rules of training so that he recognizes and firmly keeps them. The same applies to the novice. This should be so here also, which is why a lay follower must have the restraint complete. The verse says:

若皆具律儀，何言一分等？

If all have the restraint complete, why speak of one part and so on?

謂約能持說。

It is said in reference to what one is able to keep.

論曰：若諸近事皆具律儀，何緣世尊言有四種：一能學一分、二能學少分、三能學多分、四能學滿分？謂約能持故作是說。能持先所受，故說能學言。不爾，應言受一分等。理實約受等具律儀，以具律儀故名近事。如是所執違越契經。如何違經？謂無經說自稱我是近事等言便發五戒，此經不說我從今者乃至命終捨生言故。經如何說？如《大名經》。唯此經中說近事相，餘經不爾，故違越經。然餘經說：我從今時乃至命終捨生歸淨，是歸三寶發誠信言。此中顯示以見諦者，由得證淨舉命自要，表於正法深懷愛重，乃至為救自生命緣，終不捨於如來正法。非彼為欲說近事相故說如是捨生等言，設說亦非分明理教。誰能准此不明瞭文，便信前時已發五戒？又約持犯戒說學一分等尚不應問，況應為答。誰有已解近事律儀必具五支，而不能解於所學處持一非餘，乃至具持名一分等？由彼未解近事律儀受量少多，故應請問：凡有幾種鄔波索迦能學學處？答言：有四鄔波索迦，謂能學一分等。猶未能了。復問何名能學一分？乃至廣說，若闕律儀得名近事。苾芻勤策，闕亦應成。彼既不成，此亦應爾。何緣近事乃至苾芻，所受律儀支量定爾？由佛教力施設故然。若爾，何緣不許由佛教力施設，雖闕律儀而名近事非苾芻等？迦濕彌羅國毘婆沙師，不許闕律儀得成近事。此近事等一切律儀，由何得成下中上品？頌曰：

The treatise says: If all lay followers have the restraint complete, for what reason did the World-Honored One speak of four kinds: those who can train in one part, those who can train in a few parts, those who can train in many parts, and those who can train in the full measure? It is said so in reference to what one is able to keep. One keeps what one earlier undertook, so he speaks of being able to train. If it were not so, he would say undertake one part and so on. In truth, one has the restraint complete in accordance with what one undertook, and it is because one has the restraint complete that one is called a lay follower. Holding it otherwise contradicts the sutra. How does it contradict the sutra? There is no sutra saying that by calling oneself a lay follower one immediately generates the five precepts, since that sutra does not say the words from now until the end of my life I give up life. What does the sutra say? It is like the sutra of Mahanama. Only in this sutra are the characteristics of a lay follower described; other sutras do not say so, so it would contradict the sutra. Other sutras say: From now until the end of my life I give up life and take refuge in purity, and this is speaking a word of faith in taking refuge in the Three Jewels. This shows that one who has seen the truths, having attained pure faith, pledges his life and holds the true Dharma deeply dear, and even to save his own life would never abandon the true Dharma of the Tathagata. It is not that these words about giving up life were said in order to describe the characteristics of a lay follower, and even if they had been said, the reasoning and teaching would not be clear. Who could rely on such an unclear passage and believe that the five precepts were already generated earlier? Moreover, when speaking of one part and so on in terms of keeping and breaking the precepts, the question should not even be asked, still less answered. Who, having understood that the restraint of a lay follower must have five limbs, would be unable to understand that regarding the trainings one may keep one and not the others, up to keeping all, which is called one part and so on? Because they had not yet understood how many or few the measures of the restraint of a lay follower are, they should have asked: How many kinds of upasaka are able to train in the trainings? The answer said: There are four kinds of upasaka, namely those who can train in one part and so on. They still could not understand and asked again what is meant by being able to train in one part, and so on at length. If one could be called a lay follower while lacking the restraint, then a bhikshu or a novice should likewise be accomplished while lacking it. Since they are not, this is also so here. For what reason is the measure of the limbs of restraint fixed in this way from the lay follower up to the bhikshu? Because it is established by the power of the Buddha's teaching. If so, why is it not allowed that, being established by the power of the Buddha's teaching, one may be called a lay follower while lacking the restraint, but not a bhikshu and so on? The Vibhasa masters of Kashmir do not allow that one can be a lay follower while lacking the restraint. By what are all the restraints of these lay followers and others accomplished as lower, middle or superior grade? The verse says:

下中上隨心。

Lower, middle and superior follow the mind.

論曰：八眾所受別解脫律儀，皆隨受心有下中上品。由如是理，諸阿羅漢或有成就下品律儀，然諸異生或成上品。為有但受近事律儀不受三歸成近事不？不成近事，除有不知。諸有歸依佛法僧者，為歸何等？頌曰：

The treatise says: The restraints of individual liberation undertaken by the eight assemblies all have lower, middle and superior grades according to the mind with which they were undertaken. By this reasoning, some arhats may possess a lower-grade restraint, while some ordinary beings may possess a superior-grade one. Can one who undertakes only the restraint of a lay follower and not the three refuges become a lay follower? He does not become one, except for one who does not know. Those who take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, what do they take refuge in? The verse says:

歸依成佛僧，無學二種法，

Refuge is in the accomplished Buddha and Sangha, in the two kinds of dharmas of the no-more-learning,

及涅槃擇滅，是說具三歸。

and in nirvana as cessation through discernment; this is said to be complete refuge in the three.

論曰：歸依佛者，謂但歸依能成佛無學法，由彼勝故身得佛名，或由得彼法佛能覺一切。何等名為佛無學法？謂盡智等及彼隨行。非色等身，前後等故。為歸一佛、一切佛耶？理實應言歸一切佛，以諸佛道相無異故。歸依僧者，謂通歸依諸能成僧學無學法，由得彼故僧成八種補特伽羅，不可破故。為歸一佛僧、一切佛僧耶？理實通歸一切佛僧，以諸僧道相無異故。然契經說，當來有僧汝應歸者，彼經但為顯示當來現見僧寶。歸依法者，謂歸涅槃。此涅槃言唯顯擇滅自他相續煩惱及苦，寂滅一相，故通歸依。若唯無學法即是佛者，如何於佛所惡心出血，但損生身成無間罪？毘婆沙者作是釋言：壞彼所依，彼隨壞故。然尋本論，不見有言唯無學法即名為佛，但言無學法能成於佛。既不遮佛體亦攝依身，故於此中不容前難。若異此者，應佛與僧住世俗心非僧非佛。又應唯執成苾芻戒即是苾芻。然如有欲供養苾芻者，彼唯供養成苾芻屍羅。如是有欲歸依佛者，亦應但歸成佛無學法。有餘師說：歸依佛者，總歸依如來十八不共法。此能歸依何法為體？語表為體。如是歸依以何為義？救濟為義。由彼為依，能永解脫一切苦故。如世尊言：

The treatise says: Those who take refuge in the Buddha take refuge only in the dharmas of the no-more-learning that accomplish a Buddha, because by their excellence the body is called Buddha, or because by attaining those dharmas the Buddha is able to awaken to all. What are called the Buddha's dharmas of the no-more-learning? Namely the knowledge of extinction and the like and what accompanies them, not the physical body, because the body is not constant before and after. Does one take refuge in one Buddha or in all Buddhas? In truth one should say one takes refuge in all Buddhas, because the characteristics of the path of all Buddhas are not different. Those who take refuge in the Sangha take refuge generally in the dharmas of learning and no-more-learning that accomplish the Sangha, because by attaining them the Sangha is made up of eight kinds of persons and cannot be broken. Does one take refuge in the Sangha of one Buddha or of all Buddhas? In truth one takes refuge generally in the Sangha of all Buddhas, because the characteristics of the path of all Sanghas are not different. As for the sutra saying that in the future there will be a Sangha in which you should take refuge, that sutra is only meant to show the Sangha Jewel that will be seen in the future. Those who take refuge in the Dharma take refuge in nirvana. This word nirvana here refers only to cessation through discernment, the one characteristic of the extinction of afflictions and suffering in oneself and others, so refuge is taken generally. If only the dharmas of the no-more-learning are the Buddha, then how can one who with malicious intent draws blood from the Buddha, wounding only his physical birth-body, commit an act of immediate retribution? The Vibhasa masters explain: Because when one destroys what the dharmas rely on, they are destroyed along with it. Yet looking into the root treatise, I do not find any statement that only the dharmas of the no-more-learning are called the Buddha, but only that the dharmas of the no-more-learning accomplish the Buddha. Since it does not exclude that the Buddha's essence also includes the body that supports them, the earlier objection has no place here. If it were otherwise, then a Buddha or Sangha abiding in a worldly mind would be neither Sangha nor Buddha. One should also hold that merely having the discipline of a bhikshu is being a bhikshu. Yet when someone wishes to make offerings to a bhikshu, he is only making offerings to one who has accomplished the bhikshu's moral discipline. In the same way, one who wishes to take refuge in the Buddha should only take refuge in the dharmas of the no-more-learning that accomplish a Buddha. Some other masters say: Taking refuge in the Buddha is taking refuge in all of the Tathagata's eighteen exclusive qualities. What dharma is the essence of this refuge? Verbal expression is its essence. What is the meaning of refuge in this way? Its meaning is rescue, because relying on it one can be forever freed from all suffering. As the World-Honored One said:

眾人怖所逼，多歸依諸山，

People driven by fear take refuge in many mountains,

園苑及叢林，孤樹制多等。

in gardens and groves, in solitary trees and caityas (shrines) and the like.

此歸依非勝，此歸依非尊，

This refuge is not supreme, this refuge is not honored;

不因此歸依，能解脫眾苦。

not through this refuge can one be freed from all suffering.

諸有歸依佛，及歸依法僧，

Those who take refuge in the Buddha, and take refuge in the Dharma and Sangha,

於四聖諦中，恆以慧觀察。

always observe with wisdom within the four noble truths.

知苦知苦集，知永超眾苦，

They know suffering, know the origin of suffering, know the forever overcoming of all suffering,

知八支聖道，趣安隱涅槃。

and know the eightfold noble path leading to peaceful nirvana.

此歸依最勝，此歸依最尊，

This refuge is supreme, this refuge is most honored;

必因此歸依，能解脫眾苦。

through this refuge one can surely be freed from all suffering.

是故歸依，普於一切受律儀處為方便門。何緣世尊於餘律儀處立離非梵行為其所學？唯於近事一律儀中但制令其離欲邪行。頌曰：

For this reason taking refuge is the general gateway of means to every occasion of undertaking restraint. Why did the World-Honored One, for the other restraints, set abstaining from unchastity as the training, but for the single restraint of a lay follower only direct abstention from sexual misconduct? The verse says:

邪行最可訶，易離得不作。

Misconduct is most blameworthy and easy to refrain from, so one does not do it.

論曰：唯欲邪行世極訶責，以能侵毀他妻等故、感惡趣故非非梵行，又欲邪行易遠離故。諸在家者耽著欲故，離非梵行難可受持，觀彼不能長時修學，故不制彼離非梵行。又諸聖者於欲邪行一切定得不作律儀，經生聖者亦不行故。離非梵行則不如是，故於近事所受律儀，但為制立離欲邪行。勿經生聖者犯近事律儀。不作律儀謂定不作，諸有先受近事律儀後娶妻妾，於彼妻妾先受戒時得律儀不？理實應得。勿但於一分得別解律儀。若爾，云何後非犯戒？頌曰：

The treatise says: Only sexual misconduct is severely condemned by the world, because it violates another's wife and the like and brings about evil destinies, and is not unchastity in general, and also because sexual misconduct is easy to stay far from. Householders are attached to desire, so abstaining from unchastity is hard for them to undertake and keep; seeing that they cannot practise it for long, the Buddha did not require them to abstain from unchastity. Moreover, holy ones with regard to sexual misconduct all certainly have the restraint of not doing it, because even holy ones who still have another life to live do not commit it. Abstaining from unchastity is not like this, so for the restraint undertaken by a lay follower only abstaining from sexual misconduct was set up, lest a holy one with one more life to live should break the restraint of a lay follower. The restraint of not doing means definitely not doing. If someone who earlier undertook the restraint of a lay follower later takes wives and concubines, does he obtain the restraint with respect to these wives and concubines at the time of first undertaking the precepts? In truth he should obtain it, lest he obtain the restraint of individual liberation only in part. If so, how is it that he later does not break the precepts? The verse says:

得律儀如誓，非總於相續。

The restraint is obtained as vowed, not for the whole continuum.

論曰：如本受誓而得律儀。本受誓云何？謂離欲邪行。非於一切有情相續言我皆當離非梵行，由此普於有情相續唯得離欲邪行戒。非離非梵行律儀故，後納妻妾非毀犯前戒。何緣但制離虛誑語？非離間語等為近事律儀，亦由前說三種因故。謂虛誑語最可訶故，諸在家者易遠離故，一切聖者得不作故。復有別因，頌曰：

The treatise says: One obtains the restraint as the vow was originally undertaken. How was the original vow? Namely abstaining from sexual misconduct. It was not said that in the continuum of all sentient beings I shall abstain from unchastity, so one obtains the precept of abstaining from sexual misconduct universally in the continuum of sentient beings only. Because it is not the restraint of abstaining from unchastity, taking wives and concubines later does not destroy or break the earlier precept. For what reason is only false speech prohibited, and not divisive speech and so on, as part of the lay follower's restraint? It is also because of the three reasons given before: false speech is most blameworthy, householders can easily stay far from it, and all holy ones attain not doing it. There is also another reason. The verse says:

以開虛誑語，便越諸學處。

Because permitting false speech would lead one to transgress all the trainings.

論曰：越諸學處被檢問時，若開虛誑語，便言我不作，因斯於戒多所違越。故佛為欲令彼堅持，於一切律儀制離虛誑語。云何令彼若犯戒時便自發露能防後犯？復以何緣不於遠離遮罪建立近事律儀？誰言此中不離遮罪。離何遮罪？謂離飲酒。何緣於彼諸遮罪中不制離餘，唯遮飲酒？頌曰：

The treatise says: When one transgresses the trainings and is investigated and questioned, if false speech is permitted, one would say I did not do it, and as a result would transgress the precepts in many ways. Therefore the Buddha, wishing them to keep the precepts firmly, set abstaining from false speech in all the restraints. How is it that when they break a precept they confess it by themselves and so guard against later violations? And for what reason is the lay follower's restraint not established as abstaining from offenses that are wrong only by prohibition? Who says that abstention from such offenses is not included here? Which offenses by prohibition does one abstain from? Namely abstaining from drinking liquor. Why, among those offenses by prohibition, is no other abstention required, only the prohibition of liquor? The verse says:

遮中唯離酒，為護餘律儀。

Among prohibited acts only liquor is abstained from, in order to protect the other restraints.

論曰：諸飲酒者心多縱逸，不能守護諸餘律儀，故為護餘令離飲酒。寧知飲酒遮罪攝耶？由此中無性罪相故，以諸性罪唯染心行。為療病時雖飲諸酒，不為醉亂能無染心。豈不先知酒能醉亂，而故欲飲即是染心。此非染心由自知量，為療病故分限而飲，不令醉亂故非染心。諸持律者言：飲酒是性罪。如彼尊者鄔波離言：我當如何供給病者？世尊告曰：唯除性罪，餘隨所應皆可供給。然有染疾釋種須酒，世尊不開彼飲酒故。又契經說：諸有苾芻稱我為師不應飲酒，乃至極少如一茅端所霑酒量亦不應飲。故知飲酒是性罪攝。又諸聖者雖易多生亦不犯故，如殺生等。又經說是身惡行故。對法諸師言非性罪，然為病者總開遮戒。復於異時遮飲酒者，為防因此犯性罪故。又令醉亂量無定限，故遮乃至飲茅端所霑量。又一切聖皆不飲者，以諸聖者具慚羞故，飲酒能令失正念故。乃至少分亦不飲者，以如毒藥量無定故。又經說是身惡行者，酒是一切放逸處故。由是獨立放逸處名，餘不立此名，皆是性罪故。然說數習墮惡趣者，顯數飲酒能令身中諸不善法相續轉故，又能引發惡趣業故，或能令彼轉增盛故。如契經說：窣羅、迷麗耶、末陀放逸處。依何義說？醞食成酒名為窣羅，醞餘物所成名迷麗耶酒。即前二酒未熟已壞，不能令醉不名末陀，若令醉時名末陀酒。簡無用位重立此名。然以檳榔及稗子等亦能令醉，為簡彼故，須說窣羅、迷麗耶酒。雖是遮罪，而令放逸廣造眾惡，為令殷重遮斷故說。放逸處言，酒是放逸所依處故。

The treatise says: Those who drink liquor have minds that are often unrestrained and cannot guard the other restraints, so in order to protect the others one is made to abstain from liquor. How do we know that drinking liquor is included among offenses by prohibition? Because here there is no characteristic of a naturally evil act, since naturally evil acts are only those of a defiled mind. When one drinks liquor to cure illness, one need not be intoxicated and confused and one can have no defiled mind. Is it not that, knowing beforehand that liquor can intoxicate and confuse, one deliberately wants to drink, which is a defiled mind? This is not a defiled mind, because one knows one's measure and drinks within limits for the sake of curing illness, not letting oneself become drunk, and so it is not defiled. Those who keep the Vinaya say: Drinking liquor is a naturally evil act. As the Venerable Upali (foremost in keeping the Vinaya) said: How should I provide for the sick? The World-Honored One replied: Except for naturally evil acts, whatever is needed may be provided. Yet when a sick Sakya needed liquor, the World-Honored One did not permit him to drink it. The sutra also says: A bhikshu who claims me as his teacher should not drink liquor, not even as much as the amount clinging to the tip of a blade of grass. Therefore we know that drinking liquor is included among naturally evil acts. Moreover, holy ones, even if born many times, do not commit it, as with killing and the like. And the sutra says it is a bodily evil deed. The Abhidharma masters say it is not a naturally evil act, but the prohibition was generally relaxed for the sick. And at other times it was prohibited to guard against committing naturally evil acts because of it. Also, the degree of intoxication and confusion has no fixed limit, so even drinking what clings to the tip of a blade of grass was prohibited. Moreover, all holy ones never drink it, because holy ones have a sense of shame and conscience, and because liquor can make one lose right mindfulness. Even a small portion is not drunk, because, like poison, its effect has no fixed measure. And that the sutra says it is a bodily evil deed is because liquor is the basis of all negligence. Hence only it is given the name basis of negligence and others are not given this name, since all of those are naturally evil acts. That it is said that habitual use leads to falling into evil destinies shows that frequent drinking makes unwholesome dharmas continue in the body, brings about karma for evil destinies, or makes it grow stronger. As the sutra says: sura, maireya and madya are bases of negligence. In what sense is this said? Liquor made by fermenting grain is called sura, and that made by fermenting other things is called maireya. If the two previous kinds are not yet matured or have already spoiled and cannot intoxicate, they are not called madya; when they can intoxicate, they are called madya liquor. This name was set up again to exclude the stage in which they are useless. Yet betel nut, millet and the like can also intoxicate, so to exclude those it was necessary to speak of sura and maireya liquor. Although it is an offense only by prohibition, it makes one negligent and leads one to commit many evils, so in order to make the prohibition weighty and decisive the term basis of negligence was used, because liquor is the basis on which negligence rests.

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by the Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under imperial order

分別業品第四之三

Chapter Four on the Analysis of Karma, Part Three

此別解脫、靜慮、無漏三種律儀，從彼得一亦餘二不？不爾。云何？頌曰：

Of these three kinds of restraint, the restraint of individual liberation, the restraint of meditative absorption and the restraint without outflows, can one obtain one of them from the same source and not the other two? It is not so. How is it? The verse says:

從一切二現，得欲界律儀，

From all, from two, from the present, one obtains the restraint of the desire realm;

從根本恆時，得靜慮無漏。

from the root, at all times, one obtains the restraint of meditative absorption and the restraint without outflows.

論曰：欲界律儀謂別解脫，此從一切根本業道及從加行後起而得。從二得者，謂從二類，即情非情、性罪遮罪。從現得者，謂從現世蘊處界得，非從去來。由此律儀有情處轉，去來非是有情處故。若得靜慮無漏律儀，應知但從根本業道。尚不從彼加行後起得此律儀，況從遮罪。從恆時者，謂從過去現在未來蘊處界得。由此差別應作四句，有蘊處界從彼唯得別解律儀非餘二等。第一句者，謂從現世加行後起及諸遮罪。第二句者，謂從去來根本業道。第三句者，謂從現世根本業道。第四句者，謂從去來加行後起。非於正得善律儀時可有現世惡業道等，是故應言從現處得。理應但說防護未來，定不應言防護過現。諸有獲得律不律儀，從一切有情支因有異不？此定有異。相云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The restraint of the desire realm means the restraint of individual liberation, and it is obtained from all root courses of action and from the preparatory and subsequent acts. From two means from two kinds, namely sentient and non-sentient beings, and naturally evil acts and acts evil by prohibition. From the present means it is obtained from the aggregates, sense bases and elements of the present life, not from the past or future. This is because this restraint operates in the realm of sentient beings, and the past and future are not the realm of sentient beings. As for obtaining the restraint of meditative absorption and the restraint without outflows, one should know that it is only from the root course of action. It is not even obtained from the preparatory or subsequent acts, still less from acts evil by prohibition. From all times means from the aggregates, sense bases and elements of the past, present and future. According to these differences, four alternatives should be made: there are aggregates, sense bases and elements from which one obtains only the restraint of individual liberation and not the other two, and so on. The first alternative is the preparatory and subsequent acts of the present life and all acts evil by prohibition. The second is the root courses of action of the past and future. The third is the root courses of action of the present. The fourth is the preparatory and subsequent acts of the past and future. When one is actually obtaining a good restraint there cannot be present evil courses of action and the like, so it should be said that it is obtained from the present. In principle only the guarding of the future should be spoken of, and it should certainly not be said that one guards the past and present. Is the obtaining of restraint and non-restraint from all sentient beings different in terms of limbs and causes? It certainly is different. What are its characteristics? The verse says:

律從諸有情，支因說不定，

Restraint is from all sentient beings, but limbs and causes are said to be not fixed;

不律從一切，有情支非因。

non-restraint is from all, with sentient beings and limbs but not the causes.

論曰：律儀定從一切有情得。無少分理，支因說不定。支不定者，有從一切得，謂苾芻律儀。有從四支得，謂所餘律儀，唯根本業道名律儀支故。因不定者，謂或有義從一切因，或約餘義唯許從一。從一切者，謂從無貪瞋痴，必俱起故。唯從一者，謂從下中上心，不俱起故。此中且就後三因說。或有一類住律儀者，於一切有情得律儀，非一切支非一切因，謂以下心或中或上受近事勤策戒。或有一類住律儀者，於一切有情得律儀，由一切支非一切因，謂以下心或中或上受苾芻戒。或有一類住律儀者，於一切有情得律儀，由一切支及一切因，謂以三心受近事勤策苾芻戒。或有一類住律儀者，於一切有情得律儀，由一切因非一切支，謂以三心受近事近住勤策戒。無有不遍於諸有情得律儀者，以於一切諸有情所住善意樂方得律儀，異則不然，以惡意樂不全息故。若人不作五種定限，方可受得別解律儀，謂有情、支、處、時、緣定。有情定者，念我唯於某類有情當離殺等。言支定者，念我唯於某律儀支當持不犯。言處定者，念我唯住某類方域當離殺等。言時定者，念我唯於一月等時能離殺等。言緣定者，念我唯除鬪戰等緣能離殺等。如是受者不得律儀，但得律儀相似妙行。於非所能境，如何得律儀？由普於有情發起增上不損命意樂，故得律儀。毘婆沙師有作是說：若謂一向於所能境方可受得別解律儀，則此律儀應有增減，以所能境與非所能二類有情有轉易故，如是便有別解律儀離得捨緣有得捨過。彼說不然。如生草等先無後起或起已枯，於彼律儀無增無減。能不能境所得律儀，境轉易時例亦應爾。彼言不爾。所以者何？以諸有情前後性等、草等前後性不同故。若爾，有情般涅槃已，如前性類今時既無，於彼律儀如何無減？故如是釋，於理不然。前所說因於理為善。

The treatise says: Restraint is definitely obtained from all sentient beings; there is no principle of partial scope. But the limbs and causes are said not to be fixed. Limbs are not fixed in that some are obtained from all, namely the restraint of a bhikshu, while some are obtained from four limbs, namely the other restraints, because only the root courses of action are called the limbs of restraint. Causes are not fixed in that in some sense they come from all causes, and in another sense it is allowed that they come from only one. Coming from all means from non-greed, non-hatred and non-delusion, because they must arise together. Coming from only one means from the lower, middle or superior mind, because these do not arise together. Here let us speak just of the latter three causes. Some persons abiding in restraint obtain restraint toward all sentient beings, but not with all limbs and not with all causes, namely those who undertake the precepts of a lay follower and a novice with a lower, middle or superior mind. Some persons abiding in restraint obtain restraint toward all sentient beings through all limbs but not through all causes, namely those who undertake the precepts of a bhikshu with a lower, middle or superior mind. Some persons abiding in restraint obtain restraint toward all sentient beings through all limbs and through all causes, namely those who undertake the precepts of a lay follower, novice and bhikshu with the three minds. Some persons abiding in restraint obtain restraint toward all sentient beings through all causes but not through all limbs, namely those who undertake the precepts of a lay follower, the one-day precepts and a novice with the three minds. There is no one who obtains restraint without pervading all sentient beings, because restraint is obtained only through a wholesome intention toward all sentient beings; otherwise it would not be so, because evil intention would not be entirely stilled. Restraint of individual liberation can be undertaken only if one does not make any of five kinds of limitations, namely limitation of beings, of limbs, of place, of time and of conditions. Limiting beings means thinking: I shall abstain from killing and so on only toward a certain kind of being. Limiting limbs means thinking: I shall keep and not break only a certain limb of the restraint. Limiting place means thinking: I shall abstain from killing and so on only while living in a certain region. Limiting time means thinking: I shall be able to abstain from killing and so on only for a period such as one month. Limiting conditions means thinking: I shall abstain from killing and so on except in conditions such as battle. One who undertakes in this way does not obtain restraint, but only obtains good conduct that resembles restraint. With regard to beings that one is not capable of harming, how does one obtain restraint? Because one has generated a superior intention not to harm life universally toward sentient beings, one obtains restraint. Some Vibhasa masters say: If one holds that restraint of individual liberation can be undertaken only with respect to beings one is able to harm, then this restraint would increase and decrease, since beings one can harm and beings one cannot harm may change into each other, and then the restraint of individual liberation would be obtained and lost through conditions. They say it is not so. Like fresh grass and the like that did not exist and then grows up, or grows up and then withers, the restraint neither increases nor decreases with respect to it. The restraint obtained toward beings one can and cannot harm is also like this when the beings change. That statement is not so. Why? Because the nature of sentient beings before and after, and of grass and the like before and after, is not the same. If so, when a sentient being has entered parinirvana, the kind of being that existed before no longer exists now, so how does the restraint not decrease with respect to that being? Hence this explanation is not correct in principle. The cause stated earlier is good in principle.

若爾，前佛及所度生已涅槃者，後佛於彼既不發得別解律儀，如何屍羅無減前過？以一切佛別解律儀，皆從一切有情處得。設彼有情今猶在者，後佛從彼亦得律儀，故後屍羅無減前過。已說從彼得諸律儀。得不律儀定從一切有情業道，無少分境及不具支不律儀者。此定無有，由一切因下品等心無俱起故。若有一類由下品心得不律儀，後於異時由上品心斷眾生命，彼但成就下不律儀，亦成殺生上品表等。中品上品例此應知。此中何名不律儀者，謂諸屠羊屠鷄屠豬捕鳥捕魚、獵獸劫盜魁膾典獄、縛龍煮狗及罝弶等。等言類顯王典刑罰及餘聽察斷罪等人，但恆有害心。名不律儀者，由彼一類住不律儀。或有不律儀名不律儀者，言屠羊者，謂為活命要期盡壽恆欲害羊。餘隨所應當知亦爾。遍於有情界得諸律儀，其理可爾，由普欲利樂勝阿世耶而受得故，非屠羊等不律儀人於己至親有損害意，乃至為救自身命緣亦不欲殺，如何可說普於一切得不律儀？由彼至親若為羊等，於彼亦可有損害心。既知至親現非羊等，如何於彼可有害心？又聖必無作羊等理，如何於彼得不律儀？若觀未來羊等自體，於現相續得不律儀。是則羊等於未來世，亦有至親及聖自體，於彼決定無損害心。是則應觀未來自體，不於現在得不律儀。於羊等現身既有害意，如何不於彼得不律儀？於母等現身既無害意，如何亦於彼得不律儀？於等事中應求異理。又屠羊等不律儀人，於一生中不與不取，於己妻妾住知足心，瘂不能言無語四過，如何彼亦得具支不律儀？彼遍損善阿世耶故。雖瘂不言，而身表語所欲說義，故得具支。若爾，彼人或時先受二三學處，後但受殺，於餘不損善阿世耶，如何具發七支惡戒？毘婆沙者作如是言：必無缺支及餘一分可得名住不律儀人。經部諸師作如是說：隨所期限支具不具及全分一分皆得不律儀。

(The treatise continues:) If so, for the earlier Buddhas and those they liberated who have already entered nirvana, a later Buddha does not generate the restraint of individual liberation toward them; so how does moral discipline not suffer the fault of decrease relative to before? Because the restraint of individual liberation of all Buddhas is obtained from all sentient beings. Even if those beings are still present now, the later Buddha also obtains restraint from them, so later moral discipline does not suffer the fault of decrease relative to before. The obtaining of restraints from them has been explained. The obtaining of non-restraint is definitely from the courses of action toward all sentient beings; there is no non-restraint with a partial object or incomplete limbs. This certainly does not occur, because lower-grade minds and the like do not arise together with all causes. If someone obtains non-restraint with a lower-grade mind and later at another time takes life with a superior-grade mind, he is accomplished only in a lower non-restraint, but also accomplishes the superior expression of killing and so on. The middle and superior grades should be understood by analogy. Who are called people of non-restraint here? Namely butchers of sheep, chickens and pigs, bird-catchers, fishermen, hunters of wild animals, robbers, executioners, prison wardens, those who bind dragons or boil dogs, those who set snares, and so on. The word and so on includes those who carry out royal punishments and others who investigate and judge crimes, who always have harmful minds. They are called people of non-restraint because they abide in a kind of non-restraint. Some are also called non-restraint by the name non-restraint itself. In saying a butcher of sheep, it means one who, for the sake of livelihood, resolves to the end of his life always to want to harm sheep. The others should be understood in the same way. As for obtaining restraints universally toward the realm of sentient beings, this may be so in principle, because they are undertaken with a supreme intention to benefit and delight all. But butchers of sheep and the like, who have no harmful intent toward their closest kin and would not want to kill them even to save their own life, how can one say that they obtain non-restraint universally toward all? If their closest kin were sheep and the like, they might also have a harmful mind toward them. But knowing that their closest kin are not now sheep and the like, how could they have a harmful mind toward them? And holy ones certainly cannot become sheep and the like, so how could they obtain non-restraint toward them? If one looks to the future bodies of sheep and the like and obtains non-restraint in the present continuum, then in the future these sheep and the like will include their closest kin and the bodies of holy ones, toward which they certainly have no harmful mind. Then one should look to future bodies, and not obtain non-restraint toward the present. Since they have harmful intent toward the present bodies of sheep and the like, how do they not obtain non-restraint toward them? Since they have no harmful intent toward the present bodies of their mothers and the like, how can they obtain non-restraint toward them too? For such matters a different principle should be sought. Moreover, butchers of sheep and other people of non-restraint, throughout one life, do not take what is not given, keep contentment toward their own wives and concubines, and, being mute, do not have the four faults of speech, so how can they also obtain non-restraint with complete limbs? Because they generate a wholly harmful state of mind. Even if mute and not speaking, the bodily and verbal expression carry the meaning they wish to say, so the limbs are complete. If so, a person who first undertakes two or three trainings and later undertakes only killing, without harming the other wholesome states of mind, how does he generate the evil precepts of all seven limbs? The Vibhasa masters speak thus: There is certainly no case of lacking a limb or having only a part of the others and being called one who abides in non-restraint. The Sautrantika masters speak thus: According to the stated period, whether limbs are complete or incomplete, whether whole or partial, all obtain non-restraint.

律儀亦然，唯除八戒，由隨彼量善惡屍羅性相相違互相遮故。已說從彼得不律儀。得不律儀及餘無表，如何方便未說當說。頌曰：

Restraint is also like this, except for the eight-limbed precepts, because according to their measure, the natures and characteristics of good and evil moral discipline are contrary and block each other. The obtaining of non-restraint has been explained. How non-restraint and other non-manifest acts are obtained has not yet been explained and will now be explained. The verse says:

諸得不律儀，由作及誓受，

Non-restraint is obtained by doing and by vowing and undertaking,

得所餘無表，由田受重行。

other non-manifest acts are obtained by field, undertaking and intense practice.

論曰：諸不律儀，由二因得：一者生在不律儀家，由初現行殺等加行；二者雖復生在餘家，由初要期受殺等事，謂我當作如是事業，以求財物養活自身，當於爾時便發惡戒。得餘無表由三種因：一者由田，謂於如是諸福田所施園林等，彼善無表初施便生，如說有依諸福業事。二者由受，謂自誓言：若未禮佛不先食等。或作誓限：於齋日月半月及年常施食等。三由重行，謂起如是殷重作意行善行惡。由此三因起餘無表。如是已說得律儀等，捨律儀等未說當說。且云何捨別解律儀？頌曰：

The treatise says: Non-restraints are obtained through two causes. The first is being born into a household of non-restraint, through the first preparatory action of killing and the like. The second is being born in another household but, by first resolving to undertake the act of killing and the like, thinking I shall do this kind of work to earn wealth and support myself, at that moment one generates the evil precept. Other non-manifest acts are obtained through three causes. The first is the field, namely gifts such as gardens and groves given to fields of merit; the wholesome non-manifest act of these arises as soon as the gift is made, as in the saying about the bases of meritorious deeds that depend on something. The second is undertaking, namely one's own vow, such as not eating before one has paid homage to the Buddha, or making a limited vow, such as always giving food on fast days, on half-month days and in the course of the year. The third is intense practice, namely generating such a weighty intention in doing good or evil. By these three causes other non-manifest acts arise. Thus the obtaining of restraint and the like has been explained; the abandoning of restraint and the like has not yet been explained and will now be explained. First, how is the restraint of individual liberation abandoned? The verse says:

捨別解調伏，由故捨命終，

The restraint of individual liberation is abandoned by deliberately giving it up, by death,

及二形俱生，斷善根夜盡。

by two sexual organs arising at once, by cutting off wholesome roots, and by the night ending.

有說由犯重，餘說由法滅，

Some say it is by committing a grave offense, others say by the disappearance of the Dharma,

迦濕彌羅說，犯二如負財。

the masters of Kashmir say that committing two is like owing money.

論曰：言調伏者，意顯律儀，由此能令根調伏故。唯除近住，所餘七種別解律儀，由四緣捨：一由意樂對有解人發有表業捨學處故、二由棄捨眾同分故、三由二形俱時生故、四由所因善根斷故。捨近住戒由前四緣及由夜盡，是故總說別解律儀由五緣捨。何緣捨戒由此五緣？與受相違表業生故、所依捨故、所依變故、所因斷故、過期限故。有餘部說：於四極重感墮罪中若隨犯一，亦捨勤策苾芻律儀。有餘部言：由正法滅亦能令捨別解律儀，以法滅時一切學處結界羯磨皆止息故。迦濕彌羅國毘婆沙師言：犯根本罪時，不捨出家戒。所以然者，非犯一邊一切律儀應遍捨故，非犯餘罪有斷屍羅。然有二名，謂持犯戒。如有財者負他債時，名為富人及負債者。若於所犯發露悔除，名具屍羅不名犯戒，如還債已但名富人。若爾，何緣薄伽梵說犯四重者不名苾芻、不名沙門非釋迦子？破苾芻體、害沙門性，壞滅墮落立他勝名。依勝義苾芻，密意作是說。此言兇勃。兇勃者何？謂於世尊了義所說，以別義釋令成不了，與多煩惱者為犯重罪緣。寧知此言是了義說。由律自釋有四苾芻：一名想苾芻、二自稱苾芻、三乞匃苾芻、四破惑苾芻。此義中言非苾芻者，謂非白四羯磨受具足戒苾芻。非此苾芻先是勝義，後由犯重成非苾芻，故知此言是了義說。然彼所說，非犯一邊一切律儀應遍捨者，彼言便是徵詰大師。大師此中立如是喻，如多羅樹若被斷頭必不復能生長廣大，諸苾芻等犯重亦然。大師此中喻顯何義？意顯於戒隨犯一邊根本重罪，令餘所受必不復能生長廣大。謂彼毀犯諸重罪時，違越苾芻根本行故、與極猛利無慚無愧共相應故。行根既斷，理應遍捨一切律儀。又犯重人，世尊不許食僧祇食下至一摶、踐毘訶羅一足跟地，擯出一切苾芻事業。

The treatise says: The word discipline here means restraint, because it can tame the faculties. Except for the one-day precepts, the other seven kinds of restraint of individual liberation are abandoned by four conditions: first, by an intention to give up the training, expressed in manifest action before one who understands; second, by abandoning the community of beings of the same class; third, by two sexual organs arising at the same time; fourth, by the cutting off of the wholesome roots on which it depends. The one-day precepts are abandoned by the four conditions above and also by the ending of the night. Therefore the restraint of individual liberation is said in general to be abandoned by five conditions. Why are the precepts abandoned through these five conditions? Because a manifest action contrary to the undertaking arises, because the basis is abandoned, because the basis changes, because the cause is cut off, and because the time limit has passed. Some other schools say: If one commits any one of the four extremely grave offenses involving defeat, one also abandons the restraint of a novice and of a bhikshu. Some other schools say: The disappearance of the true Dharma also causes the abandoning of the restraint of individual liberation, because when the Dharma has disappeared, all training rules, boundary settings and karma procedures (the formal acts of the Sangha) cease. The Vibhasa masters of Kashmir say: When one commits a root offense, one does not abandon the precepts of going forth. They say so because it is not the case that committing one extreme means that all the restraints should be entirely abandoned, nor that committing other offenses cuts off moral discipline. Rather there are two names, one for keeping and one for breaking the precepts. For example, a wealthy man who owes a debt to another is called both a rich man and a debtor. If one confesses and repents of what one has committed, one is called possessing moral discipline and is not called a breaker of precepts, just as one who has repaid the debt is called only a rich man. If so, why did the Blessed One say that one who commits the four grave offenses is not a bhikshu, not a shramana, and not a son of the Sakya? The nature of a bhikshu is destroyed and the quality of a shramana is harmed, and one is said to fall into defeat, the name for the offense that defeats one. This was spoken with a hidden intention in terms of the bhikshu in the ultimate sense. Such words are violent and harsh. What is violent and harsh? It is to take what the World-Honored One said in definitive meaning and explain it with another meaning so as to make it indefinitive, becoming a cause for the grave offenses of those with many afflictions. How do we know that these words are a definitive statement? Because the Vinaya itself explains that there are four kinds of bhikshu: the bhikshu in name, the bhikshu by self-claim, the bhikshu who begs, and the bhikshu who breaks delusion. In this meaning, not being a bhikshu means not being a bhikshu who has received full ordination by the formal act of a motion and three announcements. It is not that this bhikshu was first one in the ultimate sense and later ceased to be a bhikshu by committing a grave offense, so we know these words are a definitive statement. Yet as for what they say, that committing one extreme does not mean all the restraints should be entirely abandoned, those words amount to questioning the Master. The Master here set up this simile: Like a palm tree whose head has been cut off, which certainly cannot grow tall and wide again, so it is with bhikshus who commit a grave offense. What meaning does the Master show by this simile? The intention is to show that with regard to the precepts, if one commits any one root grave offense, all the others undertaken certainly can no longer grow and expand. For when one violates the grave offenses, one goes against the root practice of a bhikshu and is accompanied by extremely fierce shamelessness and lack of conscience. Since the root of practice has been cut, in principle all the restraints should be abandoned entirely. Also, the World-Honored One did not allow a person who has committed a grave offense to eat the Sangha's food even by a single mouthful, or to tread even a heel's width of the vihara (monastery) ground, and expelled him from all the affairs of the bhikshus.

大師依彼說如是言：應速拔除稻禾稗莠，應速簡棄腐朽棟梁，應速簸颺種中穅秕，如是應速驅擯眾中實非苾芻稱苾芻者。彼苾芻體其相如何，隨相是何體必應有。以世尊說，準陀當知有四沙門，更無第五。所言四者：一勝道沙門、二示道沙門、三命道沙門、四汙道沙門。雖有此說，而彼唯有餘沙門相，故名沙門。如被燒材假鸚鵡𭪿涸池敗種火輪死人。若犯重人非苾芻者，則應無有授學苾芻。不說犯重人，皆成他勝罪；但成他勝罪，定說非苾芻。謂或有人相續殊勝，雖犯極重戒而非他勝罪，由彼無有一念覆心。法主世尊制立如是，若犯他勝便非苾芻。何不重令出家受戒？由彼相續已為極重無慚愧懷，無力能發出家律儀，如焦種故；非觀彼有苾芻律儀，故不重令出家受戒。所以然者，設彼後時謂是苾芻更捨所學，亦不許彼重出家故。於此無義，苦救何為？若如是人猶有苾芻性，應自歸禮如是類苾芻。正法滅時雖無一切結界羯磨及毘奈耶，未得律儀無新得理，而先得者無有捨義。靜慮、無漏二律儀等，云何當捨？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) The Master, relying on this, spoke these words: One should swiftly pull out the rice weeds and darnel, one should swiftly discard rotten beams and pillars, one should swiftly winnow out the chaff from the seed; in the same way one should swiftly drive out of the assembly those who are not truly bhikshus but call themselves bhikshus. What is the characteristic of the bhikshu's essence? Whatever the characteristic follows must have an essence. For the World-Honored One said, Cunda, you should know there are four kinds of shramanas and no fifth. The four are: the shramana who is victorious in the path, the shramana who teaches the path, the shramana who lives by the path, and the shramana who defiles the path. Although this is said, those persons have only the other characteristics of a shramana and so are called shramanas, like a burnt log, a counterfeit parrot's beak, a dried-up pond, a spoiled seed, a firebrand wheel, or a dead man. If a person who has committed a grave offense is not a bhikshu, then there would be no one to give instruction to a bhikshu in training. It is not said that all who commit grave offenses incur the offense of defeat; only those who incur the offense of defeat are definitely said not to be bhikshus. Some persons have an especially excellent continuum, and although they violate a most grave precept it is not an offense of defeat, because they have not a single moment of concealing it in the mind. The Lord of the Dharma, the World-Honored One, established that if one commits defeat one is not a bhikshu. Why not make them go forth and receive the precepts again? Because their continuum already harbors extreme shamelessness and lack of conscience and has no power to generate the restraint of going forth, like a scorched seed; it is not that they are seen as having the restraint of a bhikshu, so they are not made to go forth and receive the precepts again. Why is it so? Even if later they thought themselves bhikshus and gave up the training again, it is not permitted that they go forth again. In this case there is no point; what use is it to be anxious to rescue them? If such a person still had the nature of a bhikshu, he should bow in respect to such bhikshus himself. When the true Dharma has disappeared, although all boundary settings, karma procedures and the Vinaya are gone, there is no principle by which restraint not yet obtained could be newly obtained, yet what was obtained earlier has no cause to be abandoned. How are the restraints of meditative absorption and the restraint without outflows and so on abandoned? The verse says:

捨定生善法，由易地退等，

Wholesome dharmas born of meditative absorption are abandoned by changing realm, by decline and the like,

捨聖由得果，練根及退失。

the holy are abandoned by attaining a fruit, by refining the faculties, and by falling away.

論曰：諸靜慮地所繫善法，由二緣捨：一由易地，謂從下地生上地時，或上地沒來生下地；二由得退，謂從已獲勝定功德還退失時。等言為顯捨眾同分亦捨少分殊勝善根，如色界中所有善法由易地退捨，無色界亦然，唯無律儀與色界異。無漏善法由三緣捨：一由得果，謂得果時捨前向道及果道故；二由練根，謂練根位由得利道捨鈍道故；三由退失，謂得退時退失果道勝果道故。如是已說捨諸律儀。不律儀云何捨？頌曰：

The treatise says: Wholesome dharmas bound to the meditative realms are abandoned through two conditions: first, by changing realm, namely when one is born from a lower realm into a higher one, or when one dies from a higher realm and is born in a lower one; second, by decline, namely when one falls back from the excellent meditative merits one had obtained. The word and the like also shows that when one abandons a community of beings of the same class, one abandons some excellent wholesome roots. As with wholesome dharmas in the form realm, which are abandoned by changing realm or decline, so it is in the formless realm too, except that there is no restraint there, which differs from the form realm. Wholesome dharmas without outflows are abandoned through three conditions: first, by attaining a fruit, namely when one attains the fruit one abandons the path of the preceding stage and the path of the fruit; second, by refining the faculties, namely at the stage of refining the faculties one abandons the dull path by obtaining the sharp path; third, by falling away, namely when one falls back one loses the path of the fruit and the path of the superior fruit. Thus the abandoning of all the restraints has been explained. How is non-restraint abandoned? The verse says:

捨惡戒由死，得戒二形生。

The evil precept is abandoned by death, by obtaining a precept, and by two sexual organs arising.

論曰：諸不律儀，由三緣捨：一者由死捨所依故。二由得戒，謂若受得別解律儀，或由獲得靜慮律儀，惡戒便捨。由因緣力得律儀時，諸不律儀一切皆斷，以善惡戒其性相違，善戒於中勢力強故。三由相續二形俱生，以於爾時所依變故。住惡戒者，雖或有時起不作思捨刀網等，若不受得諸善律儀，諸不律儀無容棄捨。譬如雖避發病因緣，不服良藥病終難愈。不律儀者受近住戒，至夜盡位捨律儀時，為得不律儀、為名處中者？有餘師說：得不律儀，惡阿世耶非永捨故，如停熱鐵赤滅青生。有餘師言：若不更作，無緣令彼得不律儀，以不律儀依表得故。處中無表捨復云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Non-restraints are abandoned through three conditions. First, by death, since the basis is abandoned. Second, by obtaining a precept, namely if one undertakes the restraint of individual liberation or obtains the restraint of meditative absorption, the evil precept is abandoned. When one obtains restraint through the power of causes and conditions, all non-restraints are cut off, because wholesome and evil precepts are contrary in nature and the wholesome precept is stronger in power. Third, by two sexual organs arising together in the continuum, because at that moment the basis changes. For one abiding in the evil precept, even if at times he gives rise to the intention of not doing it and abandons knives, nets and the like, if he does not undertake the wholesome restraints, the non-restraints cannot be cast off. It is like avoiding the causes of illness without taking good medicine, so the illness can hardly be cured. When a person of non-restraint undertakes the one-day precepts and at the end of the night abandons the restraint, does he obtain non-restraint, or is he called intermediate? Some other masters say: He obtains non-restraint, because the evil intention was not abandoned for good, as a piece of hot iron, when set aside, loses its redness and turns blue. Some other masters say: If he does not do anything again, there is no condition by which he could obtain non-restraint, because non-restraint is obtained in reliance on manifest action. How is the intermediate non-manifest act abandoned? The verse says:

捨中由受勢，作事壽根斷。

The intermediate one is abandoned by the power of undertaking, the act, the thing, and the cutting of the life faculty.

論曰：處中無表，捨由六緣：一由受心斷壞故捨，謂捨所受，作是念言：我從今時棄先所受。二由勢力斷壞故捨，謂由淨信煩惱勢力所引無表，彼二限勢若斷壞時無表便捨，如所放箭及陶家輪，弦等勢力盡時便止。三由作業斷壞故捨，謂如所受後更不作。四由事物斷壞故捨。事物者何？謂所捨施寺舍敷具制多園林，及所施為罝網等事。五由壽命斷壞故捨，謂所依止有轉易故。六由善根斷壞故捨，謂起加行斷善根時，便捨善根所引無表欲非色善，及餘一切非色染法。捨復云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The intermediate non-manifest act is abandoned by six conditions. First, it is abandoned through the destruction of the mind of undertaking, namely abandoning what one undertook, thinking: From now on I give up what I undertook before. Second, it is abandoned through the destruction of power, namely the non-manifest act drawn forth by the power of pure faith or of afflictions; when the limit of the power of those two is cut off, the non-manifest act is abandoned, like an arrow that has been shot or a potter's wheel, which stops when the power of the bowstring or the like is exhausted. Third, it is abandoned through the destruction of the act, as when one does not do again what one undertook. Fourth, it is abandoned through the destruction of the thing. What is the thing? It is what one gave away, such as a donated monastery, bedding, shrine or grove, and things given to be used for nets and the like. Fifth, it is abandoned through the destruction of the life faculty, namely because the basis on which it rests changes. Sixth, it is abandoned through the destruction of the wholesome roots, namely when one undertakes the preparation for cutting the wholesome roots, one abandons the non-manifest acts drawn forth by the wholesome roots in the desire realm, which are non-material wholesome dharmas, and all other non-material defiled dharmas. And how are they abandoned? The verse says:

捨欲非色善，由根斷上生，

Non-material wholesome dharmas of the desire realm are abandoned by cutting the roots or by birth in a higher realm,

由對治道生，捨諸非色染。

and non-material defiled dharmas are abandoned by the arising of the counteracting path.

論曰：欲界一切非色善法，捨由二緣：一斷善根、二生上界。三界一切非色染法捨由一緣，謂彼但由對治道起。若此品類能斷道生，當捨此中所有煩惱及彼助伴，非餘方便。善惡律儀何有情有？頌曰：

The treatise says: All non-material wholesome dharmas of the desire realm are abandoned through two conditions: cutting the wholesome roots and being born in a higher realm. All non-material defiled dharmas of the three realms are abandoned through one condition, namely only by the arising of the counteracting path. When a path capable of cutting this class arises, one will abandon all the afflictions in it and their companions, and not by any other means. In which sentient beings are good and evil restraint found? The verse says:

惡戒人除北，二黃門二形，

The evil precept is in humans, excluding the north, the two kinds of eunuchs and those with two sexual organs;

律儀亦在天，唯人具三種。

restraint is also in the heavens, but only humans have all three kinds.

生欲天色界，有靜慮律儀，

Those born in the desire-realm heavens and the form realm have the restraint of meditative absorption,

無漏並無色，除中定無想。

the restraint without outflows also in the formless realm, excluding the intermediate absorption and the state without thought.

論曰：唯於人趣有不律儀，然除北洲唯三方有。於三洲內，復除扇搋及半擇迦具二形者。律儀亦爾，謂於人中除前所除，並天亦有，故於二趣容有律儀。復以何緣知扇搋等所有相續非律儀依？由經律中有誠證故。謂契經說，佛告大名：諸有在家白衣男子男根成就，歸佛法僧起殷淨心發誠諦語，自稱我是鄔波索迦，願尊憶持慈悲護念。齊是名曰鄔波索迦。毘奈耶中亦作是說：汝應除棄此色類人。故知律儀非彼類有。復由何理彼無律儀？由二所依所起煩惱，於一相續俱增上故、於正思擇無堪能故、無有極重慚愧心故。若爾，何故無不律儀？彼於惡中心不定故。又若是處有善律儀，則惡律儀於彼亦有，由此二種相翻立故。北俱盧人無受及定，及無造惡勝阿世耶，是故彼無善戒惡戒。猛利慚愧惡趣中無，故律不律儀於彼亦非有。與勝慚愧相應相違，方有律儀不律儀故。又扇搋等如醎鹵田，故不能生善戒惡戒。世間現見諸醎鹵田，不能滋生嘉苗穢草。若爾，何故契經中言有卵生龍，半月八日每從宮出來至人間，求受八支近住齋戒。此得妙行，非得律儀。是故律儀唯人天有，然唯人具三種律儀，謂別解脫、靜慮、無漏。若生欲天及生色界，皆容得有靜慮律儀，生無色界彼必非有，無漏律儀亦在無色。謂若生在欲界天中及生色界中，除中定無想，皆容得有無漏律儀。生無色中唯得成就，以無色故必不現起。因辯諸業性相不同，當釋經中所摽諸業。且經中說業有三種，善、惡、無記。其相云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Only in the human destiny is there non-restraint, but excluding the northern continent, it exists only in three directions. Within the three continents, again excluding eunuchs (those unable to be male), semi-eunuchs and those with two sexual organs. Restraint is also like this, namely among humans it excludes those excluded before, and it exists also among the gods, so restraint may occur in the two destinies. How do we know that the continuum of eunuchs and the like is not a basis for restraint? Because there is reliable evidence in the sutras and Vinaya. The sutra says that the Buddha told Mahanama: When a layman, a man in white with the male organ complete, takes refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha with a deeply pure mind and speaks a sincere and truthful word, saying of himself, I am an upasaka, may the Venerable remember and uphold me with compassion and care, up to this point he is called an upasaka. In the Vinaya it is also said: You should drive out and discard people of this kind. Therefore we know that restraint is not found in those kinds. And by what reasoning do they have no restraint? Because the afflictions arising from two bases both increase in one continuum, because they have no capacity for correct reflection, and because they have no extremely strong sense of shame and conscience. If so, why do they have no non-restraint? Because their minds are not settled in evil. Moreover, where there can be good restraint, evil restraint can also be present, since these two are set up in mutual contrast. The people of Uttarakuru have no undertaking and no determination, and no superior intention to do evil, so they have neither good nor evil precepts. In evil destinies there is no strong sense of shame and conscience, so restraint and non-restraint do not exist there either. It is because restraint and non-restraint exist only where there is excellent shame and conscience, or its contrary. Moreover, eunuchs and the like are like saline-alkaline fields and so cannot produce good or evil precepts. In the world we see that saline fields cannot nurture either good grain or foul weeds. If so, why does a sutra say that egg-born dragons, on the eighth day of the half-month, come out of their palaces to the human world seeking to undertake the eight-limbed one-day fast precepts? That is obtaining good conduct and not obtaining restraint. Therefore restraint exists only among humans and gods, but only humans have all three kinds, namely individual liberation, meditative absorption and no outflows. If one is born in the desire-realm heavens or the form realm, one may have the restraint of meditative absorption; if born in the formless realm one certainly does not. The restraint without outflows also exists in the formless realm. If one is born in the desire-realm heavens or in the form realm, excluding the intermediate absorption and the state without thought, one may have the restraint without outflows. Born in the formless realm one can only possess it, because without form it certainly cannot be actively manifested. In the course of distinguishing the different natures and characteristics of acts, we should explain the acts mentioned in the sutras. First, the sutra says there are three kinds of karma: good, evil and neutral. What are their characteristics? The verse says:

安不安非業，名善惡無記。

Acts that are at ease, not at ease, and neither are called good, evil and neutral.

論曰：如是名為善等業相，謂安隱業說名為善，能得可愛異熟涅槃，暫永二時濟眾苦故。不安隱業名為不善，由此能招非愛異熟，與前安隱性相違故。非前二業立無記名，不可記為善不善故。又經中說：業有三種，福非福等。其相云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: These are the characteristics of the acts called good and so on. An act of ease is called good, because it brings about a pleasing result of maturation and nirvana, temporarily and permanently relieving the sufferings of beings. An act not at ease is called unwholesome, because it brings about an unpleasant result of maturation, contrary to the nature of the ease described before. Acts other than the first two are called neutral, because they cannot be declared good or unwholesome. The sutra also says that karma is of three kinds: meritorious, non-meritorious and so on. What are their characteristics? The verse says:

福非福不動，欲善業名福，

Meritorious, non-meritorious and immovable: good acts of the desire realm are called meritorious,

不善名非福，上界善不動，

unwholesome acts are called non-meritorious, good acts of the higher realms are immovable,

約自地處所，業果無動故。

because the act and its fruit do not move out of their own realm and place.

論曰：欲界善業說名為福，招可愛果益有情故。諸不善業說名非福，招非愛果損有情故。上二界善說名不動。豈不世尊說下三定皆名有動？聖說此中有尋伺等名為動故。由下三定有尋伺等，災患未息故立動名；不動經中據能感得不動異熟說名不動。如何有動定招無動異熟？雖此定中有災患動，而業對果非如欲界有動轉故，立不動名。謂欲界中餘趣處業，由別緣力異趣處受。以或有業能感外內財位形量色力樂等，於天等中此業應熟；由別緣力所引轉故，於人等中此業便熟。色無色界餘地處業，無容轉令異地處受，業果處定立不動名。又經中說：業有三種，順樂受等。其相云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Good acts of the desire realm are called meritorious, because they bring about pleasing fruits and benefit sentient beings. Unwholesome acts are called non-meritorious, because they bring about unpleasant fruits and harm sentient beings. Good acts of the two higher realms are called immovable. Did the World-Honored One not say that the lower three meditative absorptions are all called movable? The holy ones say that here those with initial and sustained thought and the like are called moving. Because the lower three absorptions have initial and sustained thought and the like, and their calamities have not ceased, they are called movable; in the sutra on the immovable, the name immovable is given in terms of what can bring about an immovable result of maturation. How could a movable absorption bring about an immovable maturation? Although in these absorptions there is the movement of calamities, the act in relation to its fruit is not moved around as in the desire realm, so the name immovable is established. In the desire realm, an act in one destiny or place can, through the power of other conditions, be experienced in a different destiny or place. For some acts can bring about external and internal wealth, status, form, stature, appearance, strength, happiness and the like, and this act should ripen among the gods and so on, yet by the power of other conditions it is drawn elsewhere and ripens among humans and so on. In the form and formless realms, no act of any other realm can be moved to be experienced in a different realm or place, so the act and its result are fixed and called immovable. The sutra also says that karma is of three kinds, those that lead to pleasant feeling and so on. What are their characteristics? The verse says:

順樂苦非二，善至三順樂，

Acts leading to pleasant, painful, and neither: good acts up to the third absorption lead to pleasure,

諸不善順苦，上善順非二，

all unwholesome acts lead to pain, higher good acts lead to neither,

餘說下亦有，由中招異熟。

others say that lower realms also have this, because intermediate absorption brings about maturation.

又許此三業，非前後熟故，

It is also allowed that these three acts are not ripened earlier or later,

順受總有五，謂自性相應，

and that the leading to feeling is of five kinds in all: by own nature, association,

及所緣異熟，現前差別故。

object, maturation, and present occurrence, because of their differences.

論曰：諸善業中始從欲界至第三靜慮名順樂受業，以諸樂受唯至此故。諸不善業名順苦受。過三靜慮上地諸善業，說名為順不苦不樂受，此上都無苦樂受故。非此諸業唯感受果，應知亦感彼受資糧，受及資糧此中名受。有餘師說：下諸地中亦有第三順非二業，由中定業招異熟故。若異此者，中間定業應無異熟；或應無業，以無苦樂異熟果故。有餘師說：此業能感根本地中樂根異熟。有說：此業不感受果。二說俱與本論相違。故本論言：頗有業感心受異熟非身耶？曰：有，謂善無尋業。又本論說：頗有三業非前非後受異熟耶？曰：有，謂順樂受業色，順苦受業心心所法，順不苦不樂受業心不相應行，乃至廣說。由此證知，下地亦有順非二業，非離欲界有此三業俱時熟故。此業為善、為不善耶？是善而劣。若爾，便與所說相違，謂善至三名順樂受，得可愛果名為善業。應知彼據多分為言。此業與受體性既殊，如何說為順樂受等？業與樂受體性雖殊，而能為因利益樂受。或復此業是樂所受。彼樂如何能受於業？樂是此業異熟果故。或復彼樂是業所受，由此能受樂異熟故。如順浴散，此亦應然。是故名為順樂受業。順餘二業，應知亦爾。總說順受略有五種：一自性順受，謂一切受，如契經說：受樂受時如實了知受於樂受，乃至廣說。二相應順受，謂一切觸，如契經說：順樂受觸，乃至廣說。三所緣順受，謂一切境，如契經說：眼見色已，唯受於色不受色貪，乃至廣說，由色等是受所緣故。四異熟順受，謂感異熟業，如契經說：順現受業，乃至廣說。五現前順受，謂正現行受，如契經言：受樂受時二受便滅，乃至廣說。非此樂受現在前時有餘受能受此樂受，但據樂受自體現前即說名為受於樂受。此中但說異熟順受，由業能招受異熟故。雖業與受體性有殊，而得名為順樂受等。如是三業有定不定，其相云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Among good acts, those from the desire realm up to the third meditative absorption are called acts leading to pleasant feeling, because pleasant feelings extend only this far. All unwholesome acts are called leading to painful feeling. Good acts of the higher realms beyond the third meditative absorption are called leading to neither painful nor pleasant feeling, because above this there is neither pain nor pleasure. These acts do not bring about only the fruit of feeling; one should know they also bring about the supports of that feeling, and feeling and its supports are both called feeling here. Some other masters say: In the lower realms too there is the third kind of act, leading to neither, because acts of the intermediate absorption bring about maturation. If it were otherwise, acts of the intermediate absorption would have no maturation, or there would be no act at all, since they have no result of maturation as pain or pleasure. Some other masters say: This act brings about the pleasure faculty as maturation in the root realm. Some say this act does not bring about the fruit of feeling. Both views contradict the root treatise. For the root treatise says: Is there an act that brings about a mental feeling as maturation but not a bodily one? Yes, namely good acts without initial thought. The root treatise also says: Is there a case of three acts whose maturation is felt neither earlier nor later? Yes: the form of an act leading to pleasant feeling, the mind and mental factors of an act leading to painful feeling, and the formations disjoined from mind of an act leading to neither painful nor pleasant feeling, and so on at length. From this we know that in the lower realms too there are acts leading to neither, since apart from the desire realm these three kinds of acts do not ripen at the same time. Is this act good or unwholesome? It is good but inferior. If so, this contradicts what was said, namely that good acts up to the third are called leading to pleasant feeling and bring about a pleasing fruit and are called good. One should know that this was said in terms of the majority. Since this act and feeling are different in nature, how can it be called leading to pleasant feeling and so on? Although act and pleasant feeling differ in nature, the act can be a cause that benefits pleasant feeling. Or else this act is experienced by pleasure. How can that pleasure experience the act? Because pleasure is the result of maturation of this act. Or else that pleasure is experienced by the act, because it can experience the result of pleasant maturation. It is like a bath that accords with dispersal; this too should be so. Thus it is called an act leading to pleasant feeling. The acts leading to the other two should be understood in the same way. In general there are five kinds of leading to feeling. First, leading to feeling by own nature, namely all feelings, as the sutra says: When experiencing a pleasant feeling, one knows as it really is that one is experiencing a pleasant feeling, and so on at length. Second, leading to feeling by association, namely all contacts, as the sutra says: Contact that leads to pleasant feeling, and so on at length. Third, leading to feeling by object, namely all objects, as the sutra says: Having seen a form with the eye, one only experiences the form and does not experience craving for it, and so on at length, because forms and the like are objects of feeling. Fourth, leading to feeling by maturation, namely acts that bring about maturation, as the sutra says: Acts to be experienced in this present life, and so on at length. Fifth, leading to feeling by present occurrence, namely feeling that is actually occurring, as the sutra says: When experiencing pleasant feeling, the two feelings cease, and so on at length. It is not that when this pleasant feeling is present there is another feeling that experiences it, but only that when the pleasant feeling itself is present it is said to be experiencing pleasant feeling. Here only leading to feeling by maturation is spoken of, because acts can bring about the maturation of feeling. Although the act and the feeling differ in nature, it can still be called leading to pleasant feeling and so on. Are these three kinds of acts fixed or not fixed? What are their characteristics? The verse says:

此有定不定，定三順現等，

These are fixed or unfixed; the fixed are of three kinds, to be experienced in this life and so on,

或說業有五，餘師說四句。

or it is said that acts are of five kinds, and other masters say four alternatives.

論曰：此上所說順樂受等，應知各有定不定異，非定受故立不定名。定復有三：一順現法受、二順次生受、三順後次受。此三定業並前不定總成四種。或有欲令不定受業復有二種，謂於異熟有定不定，並定業三合成五種順現法受者，謂此生造即此生熟。順次生受者，謂此生造第二生熟。順後次受者，謂此生造從第三生後次第熟。有餘師說：順現法受業，餘生亦得熟。隨初熟位建立業名為順現等，勿強力業異熟果少。毘婆沙師不許此義，以或有業果近非勝或有相違。譬如外種經三半月葵便結實，要經六月麥方結實。譬喻者說業有四句：一者有業於時分定、異熟不定，謂順現等三非定得異熟。二者有業於異熟定、時分不定，謂不定業定得異熟。三者有業於二俱定，謂順現等定得異熟。四者有業於二俱不定，謂不定業非定得異熟。彼說諸業總成八種，謂順現受有定不定，乃至不定亦有二種。於此所說業差別中，頌曰：

The treatise says: Regarding the experience of pleasure and the rest mentioned above, one should know that each has its own difference of being fixed or unfixed; it is because the experience is not fixed that the name 'unfixed' is established. The fixed again has three kinds: first, karma to be experienced in this present life; second, karma to be experienced in the next life; third, karma to be experienced in later lives. These three fixed karmas together with the unfixed above make four kinds. Some wish to divide the unfixed karma of experience into two further kinds, namely fixed or unfixed with respect to the ripening result, and together with the three fixed karmas this makes five. Karma experienced in the present life is that which is created in this life and ripens in this very life. Karma experienced in the next life is that which is created in this life and ripens in the second life. Karma experienced in later lives is that which is created in this life and ripens successively from the third life onward. Some other teachers say: Karma to be experienced in the present life can also ripen in other lives. The name of the karma, such as 'present life' and so on, is established according to the stage at which it first ripens, lest the ripening result of a powerful karma be small. The Vaibhasika masters do not accept this meaning, because some karma has a result that is near and not superior, while another has the opposite. For example, among outside seeds, the mallow bears fruit after three and a half months, but wheat bears fruit only after six months. The Sautrantikas say that karma has four possibilities: first, karma that is fixed in time but unfixed in ripening, namely the three karmas of the present life and so on, which are not certain to ripen; second, karma that is fixed in ripening but unfixed in time, namely unfixed karma, which is certain to ripen; third, karma that is fixed in both, namely the present-life karma and so on, which are certain to ripen; fourth, karma that is unfixed in both, namely unfixed karma that is not certain to ripen. They say that karmas altogether make eight kinds, namely that karma experienced in the present life may be fixed or unfixed, and so on up to the unfixed, which also has two kinds. Concerning the distinctions of karma spoken of here, the verse says:

四善容俱作，引同分唯三，

Four may be created together among the good; leading to a class-sameness there are only three,

諸處造四種，地獄善除現。

In all places four kinds are created; in hell, good karma excludes the present-life kind.

堅於離染地，異生不造生，

Those called firm, on the ground free from defilement, and ordinary beings do not create the next-life kind;

聖不造生後，並欲有頂退。

Noble ones do not create the next-life or later kinds; and those who fall back from the desire realm and the peak of existence.

論曰：順現法受等三業，唯定並不定為四。是說為善，此中唯顯時定不定，釋經所說四業相故。頗有四業俱時作耶？容有。云何？遣三使已，自行邪欲俱時究竟。幾業能引眾同分耶？能引唯三，除順現受，現身同分先業引故。何界何趣能造幾業？諸界諸趣或善或惡，隨其所應皆容造四。總開如是，若就別遮，於地獄中善除順現，無愛果故，餘皆得造。不退姓名堅，彼於離染地。若異生類，除順生受可造餘三。聖者雙除順生順後，可造餘二。異生不退，無次更生後還生下，不退聖者必無還生下諸地故。隨所生地容造順現受，造不定業一切處無遮。然諸聖者若於欲界及有頂處已得離染，雖有退墮而亦不造順生後業，從彼退者必退果故。諸退果已必不命終，如後當辯。住中有位亦造業耶？亦造。云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The three karmas of present-life experience and so on, being fixed only, together with the unfixed make four. This is said to be good, and here it only shows whether the time is fixed or unfixed, in order to explain the reason for the four kinds of karma spoken of in the sutra. Can all four karmas be done at the same time? It is possible. How? After sending a messenger to carry out the three acts, one oneself performs wrong desire, and they are all completed at the same time. How many karmas can lead to a class-sameness among beings? Only three can lead to it, excluding the present-life experience, because a class-sameness of the present body is led by earlier karma. In which realm and in which destiny can how many karmas be created? In all realms and all destinies, whether good or bad, all four may be created according to what applies. This is the general account; as for specific exclusions, in hell good karma excludes the present-life kind, because there is no result of craving there, while the others can all be created. Those called firm are the ones who do not fall back, on the ground free from defilement. Among ordinary beings, apart from the next-life kind, the other three can be created. Noble ones exclude both the next-life and the later kind, and can create the other two, because non-regressing noble ones will certainly not be reborn in lower grounds. According to the ground where one is born, present-life karma can be created, and no obstacle prevents creating unfixed karma anywhere. However, even if the noble ones have already become free of defilement in the desire realm or at the peak of existence, although they may fall back, they do not create next-life or later karma, because those who fall back from there must fall back from their fruit. Once they have fallen back from the fruits, they will certainly not die, as will be explained below. Does one also create karma while in the intermediate existence? One does. How? The verse says:

欲中有能造，二十二種業，

In the desire realm, in the intermediate existence one can create twenty-two kinds of karma,

皆順現受攝，類同分一故。

All included in present-life experience, because the class-sameness is one.

論曰：於欲界中住中有位，容有能造二十二業。謂中有位及處胎中、出胎以後各有五位。胎中五者：一羯剌藍、二頞部曇、三閉屍、四鍵南、五缽羅奢佉。胎外五者：一嬰孩、二童子、三少年、四中年、五老年。住中有位能造中有乃至老年定不定業。應知如是中有所造十一種定業，皆順現受攝，由類同分無差別故。謂此中有位與自類十位，一眾同分一業引故。由此不別說順中有受業，即順生等業所引故。諸定受業其相云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: In the desire realm, one in the intermediate existence can create twenty-two karmas. That is, there are five stages in the intermediate existence, five in the womb, and five after leaving the womb. The five in the womb are: first, kalala; second, arbuda (a blister); third, pesi (soft flesh); fourth, ghana (firm flesh); fifth, prasakha (limbs and joints). The five outside the womb are: first, infant; second, child; third, youth; fourth, middle age; fifth, old age. One in the intermediate existence can create fixed and unfixed karma from the intermediate existence up to old age. One should know that the eleven fixed karmas created in this way in the intermediate existence are all included in present-life experience, because there is no difference of class-sameness. That is, the intermediate existence and its own ten stages of the same class are led by one karma of a common class-sameness. For this reason, karma to be experienced in the intermediate existence is not separately spoken of, because it is led by karma of the next life and so on. What is the character of fixed karma of experience? The verse says:

由重惑淨心，及是恆所造，

Karma done through heavy defilement or pure mind, or constantly done,

於功德田起，害父母業定。

Or done toward a field of merit, or harming one's parents, is fixed.

論曰：若所造業，由重煩惱、或淳淨心、或常所作、或於增上功德田起。功德田者，謂佛法僧，或勝補特伽羅，謂得勝果勝定。於此田所，雖無重惑及淳淨心亦非常行，若善不善所起諸業，或於父母隨輕重心行損害事，如是一切皆定業攝，餘非定受。現法果業其相云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: If karma that is created arises from heavy afflictions, or a very pure mind, or is constantly performed, or is directed at a supreme field of merit. The fields of merit are the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha, or superior persons, namely those who have attained a superior fruit or a superior concentration. Toward such a field, even without heavy defilement or a very pure mind and without constant practice, whatever good or unwholesome karmas arise, or if one harms one's parents with a light or heavy mind, all of these are included in fixed karma, while the rest are not fixed in experience. What is the character of karma whose result is in the present life? The verse says:

由田意殊勝，及定招異熟，

Through a supreme field or supreme intention, or certain ripening,

得永離地業，定招現法果。

Or karma of the ground of final freedom, certainly brings a present-life result.

論曰：由田勝者，聞有苾芻於僧眾中作女人語，彼於現世轉作女人。此等傳聞其類非一。由意勝者，聞有黃門救脫諸牛黃門事故，彼於現世轉作丈夫。此等傳聞事亦非一。或生此地永離此地染，於此地中諸善不善業。於異熟定位不定者，此業必能招現法果。若有餘位順定受業，彼必定無永離染義，必於餘位受異熟果。若於異熟亦不定者，永離染故不受異熟。何田起業定即受耶？頌曰：

The treatise says: As for being due to a superior field, it is heard that a monk who spoke in a woman's voice among the Sangha was turned into a woman in that very life. There are many such stories of this kind. As for being due to a superior intention, it is heard that a eunuch who saved cattle from being gelded was turned into a man in that very life. There are likewise many such stories. Or when one is born in this ground and is finally free from the defilements of this ground, then good or unwholesome karmas on this ground, which are fixed in ripening but unfixed in stage, will certainly bring a present-life result. If there is other karma that is fixed in experience in other stages, it certainly cannot be that one is finally freed from defilement, and one must receive the ripening result in those other stages. If the karma is also unfixed in ripening, one does not receive its ripening because of final freedom from defilement. Karma done toward which field is certain to be experienced at once? The verse says:

於佛上首僧，及滅定無諍，

Toward the Buddha and the chief of the Sangha, and one who has emerged from the attainment of cessation or from non-contention,

慈見修道出，損益業即受。

From loving-kindness, from the path of seeing, or the path of cultivation; harmful or beneficial karma is experienced at once.

論曰：於如是類功德田中，為善惡業定即受果。功德田者，謂佛上首僧。約補特伽羅差別有五：一從滅定出，謂此定中得心寂靜，此定寂靜似涅槃故。若從此定初起心時，如入涅槃還復出者。二從無諍出，謂此定中有緣無量有情為境，增上利益意樂隨逐。出此定時，有為無量最勝功德所燻修身相續而轉。三從慈定出，謂此定中有緣無量有情為境，增上安樂意樂隨逐。出此定時，有為無量最勝功德所燻修身相續而轉。四從見道出，謂此道中永斷一切見所斷惑得勝轉依，從此出時淨身續起。五從修道出，謂此道中永斷一切修所斷惑得勝轉依，從此出時淨身續起。故說此五名功德田。若有於中為損益業，此業必定能招即果。若從餘定餘果出時，由前所修定非殊勝，修所斷惑未畢竟盡，故彼相續非勝福田。異熟果中受最為勝，今應思擇，於諸業中頗有唯招心受異熟，或招身受非心受耶？亦有。云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Toward fields of merit of this kind, good or bad karma is certain to bear fruit at once. The fields of merit are the Buddha and the chief of the Sangha. According to the distinctions among persons there are five: first, one who emerges from the attainment of cessation, in which the mind is calm, and this attainment is calm like nirvana. When one first arises from this attainment, it is like entering nirvana and coming out again. Second, one who emerges from the attainment of non-contention, in which one takes immeasurable beings as an object, accompanied by a supreme intention to benefit them. When one emerges from this attainment, one's body continues, perfumed by immeasurable supreme merits. Third, one who emerges from the attainment of loving-kindness, in which one takes immeasurable beings as an object, accompanied by a supreme intention to give them happiness. When one emerges from this attainment, one's body continues, perfumed by immeasurable supreme merits. Fourth, one who emerges from the path of seeing, in which one has forever cut off all defilements to be cut off by seeing and has attained a supreme transformation of the basis; when emerging from it, a pure body continues to arise. Fifth, one who emerges from the path of cultivation, in which one has forever cut off all defilements to be cut off by cultivation and has attained a supreme transformation of the basis; when emerging from it, a pure body continues to arise. For this reason these five are called fields of merit. If one does harmful or beneficial karma toward them, that karma will certainly bring its result at once. When one emerges from other attainments or other fruits, the attainment cultivated earlier is not superior and the defilements to be cut off by cultivation are not completely exhausted, so that continuum is not a superior field of blessing. Among ripening results, feeling is the most superior. Now we should consider whether among karmas there are some that bring only a ripening in mental feeling, or bring bodily feeling and not mental feeling. There are. How? The verse says:

諸善無尋業，許唯感心受，

All good karma without investigation is held to bring only mental feeling;

惡唯感身受，是感受業異。

Bad karma brings only bodily feeling; this is the difference in karma that brings feeling.

論曰：善無尋業，謂從中定乃至有頂所有善業，於中能招受異熟者，應知但感心受非身，身受必與尋伺俱故。諸不善業能感受者，應知但感身受非心，以不善因苦受為果，心俱苦受。決定名憂，憂非異熟，如前已辯。有情心狂，何識因處？頌曰：

The treatise says: Good karma without investigation, namely all good karma from the middle concentration up to the peak of existence, when it brings a ripening feeling, one should know that it brings only mental feeling and not bodily feeling, because bodily feeling must be accompanied by investigation and analysis. Unwholesome karma that brings feeling, one should know, brings only bodily feeling and not mental feeling, because the result of an unwholesome cause is painful feeling, and painful feeling accompanied by mind is certainly called sorrow, and sorrow is not a ripening result, as explained above. When beings go mad, what is the cause and place of consciousness? The verse says:

心狂唯意識，由業異熟生，

Madness is only of mental consciousness, born from the ripening of karma,

及怖害違憂，除北洲在欲。

Or from fear, harm, discord, and sorrow, excluding Uttarakuru, in the desire realm.

論曰：有情心狂唯在意識，若在五識必無心狂，以五識身無分別故。由五因故有情心狂：一由有情業異熟起，謂由彼用藥物呪術令他心狂，或復令他飲非所欲若毒若酒，或現威嚴怖禽獸等，或放猛火焚燒山澤，或作坑穽陷墜眾生，或餘事業令他失念，由此業因，於當來世感別異熟能令心狂。二由驚怖，謂非人等現可怖形來相逼迫，有情見已遂致心狂。三由傷害，謂因事業惱非人等，由彼瞋故傷其支節遂致心狂。四由乖違，謂由身內風熱痰界互相違反，大種乖適故致心狂。五由愁憂，謂因喪失親愛等事，愁毒纏懷心遂發狂，如婆私等。若在意識方有心狂，復許心狂業異熟起，如何心受非異熟耶？不說心狂是業異熟，但言是業異熟所生。謂惡業因感不平等異熟大種，依此大種心便失念，故說為狂。如是心狂對於心亂應作四句，謂有心狂而非心亂，乃至廣說。狂非亂者，謂諸狂者不染汙心。亂非狂者，謂不狂者諸染汙心。狂亦亂者，謂諸狂者諸染汙心。非狂亂者，謂不狂者不染汙心。除北俱盧，所餘欲界諸有情類容有心狂。謂欲天心尚有狂者，況人惡趣得離心狂？地獄恆狂，多苦逼故。謂諸地獄恆為種種異類苦具傷害末摩猛利難忍，苦受所逼尚不自識，況了是非。故地獄中怨心傷歎，猖狂馳叫世傳有文。欲界聖中唯除諸佛，大種乖適容有心狂，無異熟生。若有定業，必應先受後方得聖。若非定業，由得聖故，能令無果亦無驚怖，超五畏故。亦無傷害，以諸聖者無非人等憎嫌事故，亦無愁憂證法性故。又經中說：業有三種，謂曲、穢、濁。其相云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Madness of beings is only in mental consciousness; it is certainly not in the five consciousnesses, because the five groups of consciousness have no discrimination. Beings go mad from five causes. First, from the ripening of the beings' karma: for example, by using drugs or spells to make others mad, or by making others drink what they do not want, such as poison or wine, or by showing fearsome majesty to frighten birds and beasts, or by setting a fierce fire to burn mountains and marshes, or by digging pits and traps to make creatures fall, or by other actions that make others lose their mindfulness; from this karmic cause, in a future life it brings a different ripening that can make one mad. Second, from fright: nonhuman beings and others appear in terrifying forms and press upon beings, and when the beings see them they go mad. Third, from injury: through some action one vexes nonhuman beings and others, and because of their anger they injure that person's limbs and so cause madness. Fourth, from disharmony: the wind, bile and phlegm elements within the body are at odds with one another, the great elements are unsettled, and so madness results. Fifth, from grief: through the loss of loved ones and the like, grief and poison wrap the heart and the mind goes mad, like the sage Vasistha and others. If madness exists only in mental consciousness and madness is also said to arise from the ripening of karma, how can mental feeling not be a ripening? It is not said that madness is the ripening of karma, but that it is born from the ripening of karma. That is, an evil karmic cause brings about unbalanced great elements as ripening, and relying on these great elements the mind loses its mindfulness, and so it is called madness. Regarding this madness and mental distraction, one should make four possibilities, namely there is madness without distraction, and so on at length. Madness but not distraction: the undefiled minds of the mad. Distraction but not madness: the defiled minds of the non-mad. Both madness and distraction: the defiled minds of the mad. Neither madness nor distraction: the undefiled minds of the non-mad. Except for Uttarakuru, beings of the other desire realm can be mad. Even the desire-realm gods have madness, how much more humans and those in evil destinies, who could be free from madness? Hell beings are always mad, because they are oppressed by great suffering. That is, hell beings are constantly injured in their vital points by instruments of torture of every kind, which are fierce and unbearable, and oppressed by painful feeling they do not even know themselves, still less can they tell right from wrong. Therefore in the hells there are resentful cries of grief and frenzied shouting, as texts passed down in the world record. Among the noble ones of the desire realm, apart from the Buddhas, madness can occur through unsettled great elements, but not as ripening. If there is fixed karma, it must be received first before one can attain nobility. If it is not fixed karma, then because of attaining nobility the fruit can be made nonexistent, and there is also no fright, because one has transcended the five fears. There is also no injury, because noble ones are not the object of hatred or dislike from nonhuman beings and others, and there is no grief, because the nature of grief has been uprooted by realization. Moreover, the sutra says that karma has three kinds, namely crooked, foul and turbid. What are their characters? The verse says:

說曲穢濁業，依諂瞋貪生。

Crooked, foul and turbid karma are said to arise from flattery, hatred and greed.

論曰：身語意三各有三種，謂曲、穢、濁。如其次第，應知依諂、瞋、貪所生。謂依諂生身語意業名為曲業，諂曲類故。若依瞋生身語意業名為穢業，瞋穢類故。若依貪生身語意業名為濁業，貪濁類故。

The treatise says: Body, speech and mind each have three kinds, namely crooked, foul and turbid. One should know that, in order, they arise from flattery, hatred and greed. That is, the bodily, verbal and mental karma that arise from flattery are called crooked karma, because they are of the class of crookedness. If they arise from hatred, the bodily, verbal and mental karma are called foul karma, because they are of the class of foulness. If they arise from greed, the bodily, verbal and mental karma are called turbid karma, because they are of the class of turbidity.

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by the Tripitaka Master Xuanzang by imperial command

分別業品第四之四

Chapter 4, Analysis of Karma, Part 4

又經中說，業有四種，謂或有業黑黑異熟、或復有業白白異熟、或復有業黑白黑白異熟、或復有業非黑非白無異熟能盡諸業。其相云何？頌曰：

Moreover, the sutra says that there are four kinds of karma, namely: some karma is black with black ripening; some karma is white with white ripening; some karma is black and white with black and white ripening; and some karma is neither black nor white with no ripening, able to exhaust all karmas. What are their characters? The verse says:

依黑黑等殊，所說四種業，

According to the differences of black, black and so on, the four kinds of karma spoken of,

惡色慾界善，能盡彼無漏，

Evil, form-realm good, desire-realm good, and the one that can exhaust them, the undefiled,

應知如次第，名黑白俱非。

Should be known, in order, as black, white, both, and neither.

論曰：佛依業果性類不同，所治能治殊，說黑黑等四。諸不善業一向名黑，染汙性故，異熟亦黑，不可意故。色界善業一向名白，不雜惡故，異熟亦白，是可意故。何故不言無色界善？傳說若處有二異熟謂中生有，具三種業謂身語意，則說非餘，然契經中有處亦說。欲界善業名為黑白，惡所雜故，異熟亦黑白，非愛果雜故。此黑白名依相續立，非據自性。所以者何？以無一業及一異熟是黑亦白，互相違故。豈不惡業果善業果雜故，是則亦應名為白黑。不善業果非必應為善業果雜，欲善業果必定應為惡業果雜，以欲界中惡勝善故。諸無漏業能永斷盡前三業者名為非黑，不染汙故，亦名非白，以不能招白異熟故。此非白言是密意說，以佛於彼《大空經》中告阿難陀：諸無學法純善純白一向無罪。本論亦言：云何白法？謂諸善法無覆無記無異熟者，不墮界故、與流轉法性相違故。諸無漏業為皆能盡前三業不？不爾。云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The Buddha spoke of the four, black-black and so on, according to the differences in the nature of the karmic result, and the difference between what is cured and what cures. All unwholesome karma is wholly called black, because it is of a defiled nature, and its ripening is also black, because it is not agreeable. Form-realm good karma is wholly called white, because it is not mixed with evil, and its ripening is also white, because it is agreeable. Why is the good of the formless realm not mentioned? It is said that where there are two ripenings, namely the arising in the intermediate existence, and three kinds of karma, namely body, speech and mind, one then speaks of them and not of the others; yet in some places the sutras also mention it. Desire-realm good karma is called black and white, because it is mixed with evil, and its ripening is also black and white, because it is mixed with undesired results. These names black and white are established according to the continuum, not according to their own nature. Why? Because no single karma and no single ripening is both black and white, for they contradict each other. Is it not that, because evil karma's results are mixed with good karma's results, it should also be called white-black? The result of unwholesome karma need not be mixed with the result of good karma, but the result of desire-realm good karma is certainly mixed with the result of evil karma, because in the desire realm evil prevails over good. The undefiled karma that can forever exhaust the preceding three karmas is called neither black, because it is not defiled, and also neither white, because it cannot bring a white ripening. This 'not white' is said with a hidden intention, for in the Great Emptiness Sutra the Buddha told Ananda that the dharmas of those beyond training are purely good, purely white, wholly without fault. The original treatise also says: What are white dharmas? They are all good dharmas, and the unobstructed indeterminate ones with no ripening, because they do not fall into the realms and are contrary to the nature of the dharmas of cyclic existence. Can all undefiled karmas exhaust the three karmas above? Not so. How? The verse says:

四法忍離欲，前八無間俱，

The four dharma acceptances, freedom from desire, the first eight uninterrupted paths together,

十二無漏思，唯盡純黑業，

Twelve undefiled volitions exhaust only purely black karma;

離欲四靜慮，第九無間思，

Freedom from desire, the four meditations, the ninth uninterrupted path with volition,

一盡雜純黑，四令純白盡。

One exhausts the mixed and the pure black, and four make pure white karma exhausted.

論曰：於見道中四法智忍及於修道離欲染位前八無間聖道俱行有十二思唯盡純黑，離欲界染第九無間聖道俱行一無漏思，雙令黑白及純黑盡，此時總斷欲界善故，亦斷第九不善業故。離四靜慮一一地染，第九無間道俱行無漏思，此四唯令純白業盡。何緣諸地有漏善法唯最後道能斷非餘？以諸善法非自性斷，已斷有容現在前故。然由緣彼煩惱盡時方說名為斷彼善法，爾時善法得離繫故。由此乃至緣彼煩惱餘一品在，斷義不成，善法爾時未離繫故。頌曰：

The treatise says: In the path of seeing, the four acceptances of the knowledge of the Dharma, and in the path of cultivation at the stage of freeing oneself from desire-realm defilements, the first eight uninterrupted noble paths, together with the twelve volitions that accompany them, exhaust only purely black karma. When the defilements of the desire realm are left behind, the single undefiled volition that accompanies the ninth uninterrupted noble path exhausts both the black-and-white and the purely black, because at this time one entirely cuts off good karma of the desire realm, and because one also cuts off the ninth unwholesome karma. For each of the four meditations, in leaving behind the defilements of each ground, the undefiled volition that accompanies the ninth uninterrupted path exhausts only the purely white karma. Why is it that for defiled good dharmas of the various grounds only the last path can cut them off and not the others? Because good dharmas are not cut off by their own nature, and having been cut off, they might still appear in the present. Yet it is said that when the defilements which take them as object are exhausted, then one speaks of cutting off those good dharmas, because at that time the good dharmas have obtained separation from bonds. For this reason, as long as one other grade of the defilements that take them as object remains, the meaning of cutting off is not established, because the good dharmas have not then obtained separation. The verse says:

有說地獄受，餘欲業黑雜，

Some say experience in hell, and other desire karma, is black and mixed;

有說欲見滅，餘欲業黑俱。

Some say the desire-realm karma cut by seeing, and other desire karma, are black and both.

論曰：有餘師說：順地獄受及欲界中順餘受業，如次名為純黑雜業。謂地獄異熟唯不善業感，故順彼受名純黑業。唯除地獄，餘欲界中異熟皆通善惡業感，故順彼受名黑白業。有餘師說：欲見所斷及欲界中所有餘業，如次名為純黑俱業。謂見所斷無善雜故名純黑業，欲修所斷有善不善故名俱業。又經中說有三牟尼，又經中言有三清淨，俱身語意。相各云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Some other teachers say that karma experienced in hell, and karma experienced in other desire-realm states, are called, in order, purely black and mixed karma. That is, the ripening in hell is brought only by unwholesome karma, so karma experienced there is called purely black karma. Apart from hell, the ripening in the rest of the desire realm is brought by both good and evil karma, so karma experienced there is called black-and-white karma. Some other teachers say that the karma cut off by seeing in the desire realm, and all other karma in the desire realm, are called, in order, purely black and both. That is, what is cut off by seeing has no good mixed in, so it is called purely black karma, while what is cut off by cultivation in the desire realm has both good and unwholesome, so it is called 'both' karma. The sutra also speaks of three sages and three purities, both of body, speech and mind. What are their characters? The verse says:

無學身語業，即意三牟尼，

The bodily and verbal karma of those beyond training, and their mind, are the three sages;

三清淨應知，即諸三妙行。

The three purities should be known to be the three kinds of fine conduct.

論曰：無學身語業，名身語牟尼，意牟尼即無學意非意業。所以者何？勝義牟尼唯心為體，謂由身語二業比知。又身語業是遠離體，意業不然，無無表故。由遠離義建立牟尼，是故即心由身語業能有所離，故名牟尼。何故牟尼唯在無學？以阿羅漢是實牟尼，諸煩惱言永寂靜故。諸身語意三種妙行，名身語意三種清淨。暫永遠離一切惡行煩惱垢故名為清淨。說此二者為息有情計邪牟尼，邪清淨故。又經中說有三惡行，又經中言有三妙行，俱身語意。相各云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The bodily and verbal karma of those beyond training are called the sages of body and speech, and the sage of mind is the mind of one beyond training, not mental karma. Why? The sage in the ultimate sense has only the mind as its substance, and is known by inference from the two karmas of body and speech. Also, bodily and verbal karma have the nature of renunciation, but mental karma does not, because it has no unmanifest form. The word 'sage' is established through the meaning of renunciation, so the mind, because it can renounce by means of bodily and verbal karma, is called a sage. Why is the sage only among those beyond training? Because an arhat is the true sage, as the defilements and words are forever stilled. The three kinds of fine conduct of body, speech and mind are called the three purities of body, speech and mind. They are called purities because for the moment or forever they separate one from the stains of all evil conduct and defilement. These two are taught in order to stop beings from clinging to false sages and false purity. The sutra also says there are three evil conducts, and also three fine conducts, both of body, speech and mind. What are their characters? The verse says:

惡身語意業，說名三惡行，

Evil bodily, verbal and mental karma are called the three evil conducts,

及貪瞋邪見，三妙行翻此。

And also greed, hatred and wrong view; the three fine conducts are the reverse of these.

論曰：一切不善身語意業，如次名身語意惡行。然意惡行復有三種，謂非意業貪、瞋、邪見，貪等離思別有體故。譬喻者言：貪瞋邪見即是意業，故《思經》中說此三種為意業故。若爾，則應業與煩惱合成一體。許有煩惱即是意業，斯有何失？毘婆沙師說彼非理。若許爾者，便與眾多理教相違，成大過失。然契經說是意業者，顯思以彼為門轉故、由此能感非愛果故、是聰慧者所訶厭故。此行即惡，故名惡行。三妙行者，翻此應知。謂身語意一切善業。非業無貪、無瞋、正見。正見邪見既無故思欲益他損他，如何成善惡？能與損益為根本故。又經中言：有十業道，或善或惡。其相云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: All unwholesome bodily, verbal and mental karma are called, in order, the evil conduct of body, speech and mind. However, the evil conduct of mind has three further kinds, namely greed, hatred and wrong view, which are not mental karma, because greed and the others have a substance separate from volition. The Sautrantikas say: Greed, hatred and wrong view are themselves mental karma, because in the Volition Sutra these three are spoken of as mental karma. If so, then karma and afflictions would become one in substance. If you hold that affliction is itself mental karma, what fault does this have? The Vaibhasika masters say that is irrational. If this were accepted, it would contradict many reasons and teachings and become a great fault. Yet the sutra says it is mental karma in order to show that volition proceeds through them as a gateway, that through them it can bring undesired results, and that they are loathed by the wise. This conduct is evil, so it is called evil conduct. Of the three fine conducts, one should know that they are the reverse of these, namely all good bodily, verbal and mental karma. They are non-greed, non-hatred and right view, not karma. Since right view and wrong view are not themselves karma, how can the volition to benefit or harm others become good or evil? Because they are the root that gives benefit or harm. The sutra also says that there are ten paths of karma, either good or evil. What are their characters? The verse says:

所說十業道，攝惡妙行中，

The ten paths of karma spoken of are included in evil and fine conduct,

麁品為其性，如應成善惡。

Their nature is the coarse grade; as appropriate they become good or evil.

論曰：於前所說惡妙行中，若麁顯易知，攝為十業道。如應若善攝前妙行，不善業道攝前惡行。不攝何等惡妙行耶？且不善中身惡業道，於身惡行不攝一分，謂加行後起餘不善身業，即飲諸酒執打縛等，以加行等非麁顯故。若身惡行令他有情失命失財失妻妾等，說為業道，令遠離故。語惡業道於語惡行，不攝加行後起及輕。意惡業道於意惡行，不攝惡思及輕貪等。善業道中身善業道，於身妙行不攝一分，謂加行後起及餘善身業，即離飲酒施供養等。語善業道於語妙行不攝一分，謂愛語等。意善業道於意妙行不攝一分，謂諸善思。十業道中前七業道為皆定有表無表耶？不爾。云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Within the evil and fine conduct spoken of above, whatever is coarse, obvious and easy to know is included as the ten paths of karma. As appropriate, if good it is included in the fine conduct above, and the unwholesome paths of karma are included in the evil conduct above. What evil and fine conduct is not included? To begin with, among the unwholesome, the bodily evil path of karma does not include one part of bodily evil conduct, namely other unwholesome bodily karma of preparation and aftermath, such as drinking alcohol, striking and binding, because preparation and the like are not coarse and obvious. If bodily evil conduct causes other beings to lose their lives, property, wives and concubines and so on, it is called a path of karma, because it leads them to separation. The verbal evil path of karma does not include, within verbal evil conduct, the preparation, aftermath and light cases. The mental evil path of karma does not include, within mental evil conduct, evil volition and light greed and so on. Among the good paths of karma, the bodily good path does not include one part of fine bodily conduct, namely preparation, aftermath and other good bodily karma, such as abstaining from alcohol, giving and offering. The verbal good path of karma does not include one part of fine verbal conduct, namely kind speech and the like. The mental good path of karma does not include one part of fine mental conduct, namely all good volitions. Among the ten paths of karma, do the first seven necessarily have both manifest and unmanifest form? Not so. How? The verse says:

惡六定無表，彼自作婬二，

Six evil ones are certainly unmanifest; if done oneself, the wrong conduct of desire has both;

善七受生二，定生唯無表。

The seven good ones, from taking birth, have both; those born of concentration are only unmanifest.

論曰：七惡業道中，六定有無表，謂殺生、不與取、虛誑語、離間語、麁惡語、雜穢語。如是六種若遣他為，根本成時自表無故。若有自作彼六業道，則六皆有表無表二，謂起表時彼便死等；後方死等與遣使同，根本成時唯無表故。唯欲邪行必具二種，要是自身所究竟故，非遣他作，如自生喜。七善業道若從受生，必皆具二，謂表、無表，受生屍羅必依表故。靜慮無漏所攝律儀名為定生，此唯無表，但依心力而得生故。加行後起如根本耶？不爾。云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Among the seven evil paths of karma, six certainly have unmanifest form, namely killing, taking what is not given, false speech, divisive speech, harsh speech and idle chatter. These six, if one sends another to do them, have no manifest form of oneself when the root act is completed. If one does those six paths oneself, all six have both manifest and unmanifest form, namely at the time of manifest action the victim dies and so on; if death comes later, it is the same as sending a messenger, and at the time of completion of the root there is only the unmanifest, because of this. Only wrong conduct in desire necessarily has both, because it must be completed by one's own body and cannot be sent to another, just as one cannot have joy by someone else. If the seven good paths of karma are taken from birth, they all have both, namely manifest and unmanifest, because the discipline taken at birth must rely on the manifest. The restraint included in meditation and the undefiled is called born of concentration, and this is only unmanifest, because it arises relying only on the power of mind. Are preparation and aftermath like the root act? Not so. How? The verse says:

加行定有表，無表或有無，

Preparation certainly has the manifest, and the unmanifest may or may not be present;

後起此相違。

Aftermath is the opposite of this.

論曰：業道加行必定有表，此位無表或有或無。若猛利纏淳淨心起則有無表，異此則無。後起翻前，定有無表，此位表業或有或無。謂若後時起隨前業則有表業，異此便無。於此義中如何建立加行根本後起位耶？且不善中最初殺業，如屠羊者將行殺時，先發殺心從床而起，執持價直趣賣羊廛，㨊觸羊身酬價捉取，牽還養飯將入屠坊，手執杖刀若打若刺，或一或再至命未終，如是皆名殺生加行。隨此表業彼正命終，此剎那頃表無表業，是謂殺生根本業道。由二緣故，令諸有情根本業道殺罪所觸：一由加行、二由果滿。此剎那後殺無表業隨轉不絕，名殺後起。及於後時剝截治洗，若稱若賣或煮，或食讚述其美表業剎那，如是亦名殺生後起。餘六業道隨其所應三分不同，準例應說。貪瞋邪見才現在前，即說名為根本業道，故無加行後起差別。此中應說。為所殺生住死有時，能殺生者彼剎那頃表無表業即成業道？為死後耶？若爾何失？二俱有過。若所殺生正住死有，能殺生者業道即成，即能殺者與所殺生，俱時命終應成業道。然宗不許彼業道成。若所殺生命終以後，能殺生者業道方成，是則不應先作是說：隨此表業彼正命終。此剎那頃表無表業，是謂殺生根本業道。又應違害毘婆沙師釋本論中加行未息，謂本論說：頗有已害生殺生未滅耶？曰：有，如已斷生命彼加行未息。毘婆沙者釋此文言：此中於後起，以加行聲說。應言於根本說加行聲，許命終後根本未息故。如無有過此中應說。此中說何名為無過？謂於根本說加行聲。若爾，於時所有表業如何可成根本業道？何為不成？以無用故。無表於此有何用耶？故業道成非由有用，但由加行果圓滿時，此二俱成根本業道。又諸業道展轉相望，容有互為加行後起。今且應說殺生業道以十業道為起加行。

The treatise says: In the path of karma, preparation certainly has the manifest, while at this stage the unmanifest may or may not be present. If it arises from an intense entanglement or a very pure mind, there is the unmanifest; otherwise there is not. The aftermath is the reverse of the former: it certainly has the unmanifest, while at this stage manifest karma may or may not be present. That is, if later one performs an act that follows the earlier karma, there is manifest karma; otherwise there is none. In this matter, how are the stages of preparation, root and aftermath established? Take first the unwholesome, beginning with killing. For example, a butcher of sheep, when about to kill, first forms the intention to kill and rises from his bed, takes the price and goes to the sheep market, touches the sheep's body, names a price and seizes it, leads it home and feeds it, then takes it to the slaughterhouse, and with a staff or knife in his hand strikes or stabs it, once or twice, until its life is not yet ended; all of these are called the preparation for killing. Following this manifest act, at the moment the animal dies, the manifest and unmanifest karma of that instant is called the root path of karma of killing. For two reasons beings are touched by the guilt of the root path of killing: first, because of the preparation, and second, because of the completion of the result. After that moment, the unmanifest karma of killing continues without break, and is called the aftermath of killing. And at a later time, the moments of manifest karma of skinning, cutting, washing, weighing, selling, cooking, eating, or praising its flavor are also called the aftermath of killing. The other six paths of karma should be explained by analogy, as appropriate, in the same three parts. Greed, hatred and wrong view are called the root path of karma as soon as they appear, so there is no distinction of preparation and aftermath. Here one should ask: when the being to be killed is in the state of dying, does the manifest and unmanifest karma of the killer at that moment complete the path of karma? Or does it do so after death? What fault is there either way? Both have faults. If the path of karma is completed when the one to be killed is in the dying state, then the killer and the one killed would have both died at the same time, and one should say the path of karma is completed; but our school does not accept that this path is completed. If the path is completed only after the one killed has died, then one should not have said earlier: following this manifest act, at the moment the animal dies, the manifest and unmanifest karma at that moment is called the root path of killing. It would also contradict the Vaibhasika masters' explanation of the original treatise, where the preparation is not yet finished, as the original treatise says: Is there a case where one has harmed a living being and the killing is not yet ended? Answer: There is, as when the life is cut off but the preparation has not ended. The Vaibhasikas explain this passage as saying that here the word 'preparation' is used for the aftermath. One should say that the word 'preparation' is used for the root, because it is accepted that after death the root has not ended. If there is no fault, what is it that is called faultless here? It is that the word 'preparation' is used for the root. If so, how can the manifest karma at that time be the root path of karma? Why can it not? Because it is of no use. What use is the unmanifest here? The path of karma is not completed because of use, but when the preparation and the result are both fulfilled, these two together complete the root path of karma. Moreover, the paths of karma, in relation to each other, can serve as one another's preparation and aftermath. Now one should say that the path of killing takes the ten paths of karma as its preparation.

謂如有人慾害怨敵，設諸謀計合搆殺緣，或殺眾生祈請助力，或盜他物以資殺事，或婬彼婦令殺其夫，或為乖離彼親友故起語四過令生猜阻。設有勢力無救護心，或於彼財心生貪著，或即於彼起瞋恚心，或起邪見長養殺業然後方殺，如是名為以十業道為殺加行。殺怨敵已，復於後時誅其所親，收其財物婬彼所愛，乃至復起貪瞋邪見次第現前，此十名為殺生後起。所餘業道如應當知。貪等不應能為加行，非唯心起加行即成，唯起心時未作事故。又經中說：苾芻當知，殺有三種：一從貪生、二從瞋生、三從痴生。乃至邪見有三亦爾。此中應說：何相殺生？名從貪生。問餘亦爾。非諸業道一切皆由三根究竟，然其加行不與彼同。云何不同？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) For example, if a man wishes to harm an enemy, he devises plans and puts together the conditions for killing, or kills living beings to pray for help, or steals another's goods to aid the killing, or seduces the enemy's wife in order to have her kill her husband, or because of separating the enemy from his friends he makes the four faults of speech to cause suspicion and obstruction. If he has power but no heart to protect, or in respect of the enemy's wealth he becomes greedy, or he directs a mind of hatred at the enemy, or he develops wrong view and nourishes the karma of killing, and only then kills, this is called taking the ten paths of karma as the preparation of killing. After killing the enemy, at a later time he executes the enemy's relatives, seizes their property, seduces those they love, and so on, with greed, hatred and wrong view appearing in turn; these ten are called the aftermath of killing. The other paths of karma should be understood likewise. Greed and the others should not be able to serve as preparation, and the preparation is not completed merely by a thought arising, because when only the thought has arisen the act has not yet been done. The sutra also says: Monks, know that there are three kinds of killing: first, born of greed; second, born of hatred; third, born of delusion. The same three kinds apply up to wrong view. Here one should ask: what kind of killing is called born of greed? And likewise for the others. It is not that all paths of karma are completed through the three roots, yet their preparation is not the same as theirs. How is it different? The verse says:

加行三根起，彼無間生故，

Preparation arises from the three roots, because they arise immediately after it,

貪等三根生。

Greed and the rest arise from the three roots.

論曰：不善業道加行生時，一一由三不善根起，依先等起故作是說。殺生加行由貪起者，如有為欲得彼身分、或為得財、或為戲樂、或為拔濟親友自身，從貪引起殺生加行。從瞋起者，如為除怨，發憤恚心起殺加行。從痴起者，如有祠中謂是法心起殺加行，又諸王等依世法律誅戮怨敵除剪兇徒，謂成大福起殺加行。又波剌私作如是說：父母老病，若令命終得免困苦便生勝福。又諸外道有作是言：蛇蠍蜂等為人毒害，若能殺者便生勝福。羊鹿水牛及餘禽獸，本擬供食故殺無罪。又因邪見殺害眾生，此等加行皆從痴起。偷盜加行從貪起者，謂隨所須起盜加行、或為別利恭敬名譽、或為救拔自身親友，從貪引起偷盜加行。從瞋起者，謂為除怨，發憤恚心起盜加行。從痴起者，謂諸王等依世法律奪惡人財，謂法應爾無偷盜罪。又婆羅門作如是說：世間財物於劫初時，大梵天王施諸梵志，於後梵志勢力微劣，為諸卑族侵奪受用。今諸梵志於世他財若奪若偷，充衣充食或充餘用或轉施他，皆用己財無偷盜罪。然彼取時有他物想，又因邪見盜他財物，皆名從痴起盜加行。邪婬加行從貪起者，謂於他妻等起染著心、或為求他財名位恭敬、或為救拔自身他身，從貪著心起婬加行。從瞋生者，謂為除怨，發憤恚心起婬加行。從痴生者，如波剌私讚於母等行非梵行。又諸梵志讚牛祠中有諸女男受持牛禁，吸水齧草或住或行，不簡親踈隨遇隨合。又諸外道作如是言：一切女人如臼花果熟食階隥道路橋船，世間眾人應共受用。此等加行從痴所生。虛誑語等語四業道從貪瞋生，類前應說。然虛誑語所有加行從痴生者，如外論言：

The treatise says: When the preparation of an unwholesome path of karma arises, each arises from the three unwholesome roots, as it is said by relying on the earlier arising cause. As for preparation for killing that arises from greed: for example, someone wants to get parts of the body, or to get wealth, or for amusement, or to rescue friends and kin or himself, and from greed the preparation for killing is aroused. As for that arising from hatred: to remove an enemy, one forms a mind of fury and begins the preparation for killing. As for that arising from delusion: for example, in a sacrifice, thinking it is the Dharma, one begins the preparation for killing; or kings and others, following the laws of the world, execute enemies and cut down evildoers, thinking it makes great merit, and begin the preparation for killing. Also the Persians say: When one's parents are old and ill, if one causes them to die they are freed from hardship and one will obtain great merit. Also certain non-Buddhists say: Snakes, scorpions, bees and the like poison people, and one who can kill them will obtain great merit; sheep, deer, water buffalo and other birds and beasts were originally meant as food, so killing them is without fault. Also those who kill beings through wrong view: all these preparations arise from delusion. As for preparation for stealing that arises from greed: according to need one begins the preparation for stealing, or for some particular profit, respect or fame, or to rescue oneself or relatives, and from greed the preparation for stealing is aroused. As for that arising from hatred: to remove an enemy, one forms a mind of fury and begins the preparation for stealing. As for that arising from delusion: kings and others, according to the law of the world, take the wealth of evil men, thinking the law should be so and there is no fault of stealing. The Brahmins also say: The wealth of the world was, at the beginning of the eon, given by the Great Brahma King to the Brahmins, and later the Brahmins' power became weak and they were encroached upon and used by lower clans. Now whenever the Brahmins seize or steal the wealth of others in the world, for clothing, food or other uses, or give it on to others, they are all using their own wealth and have no fault of stealing. Yet at the time of taking they have the perception of another's property; and also those who steal others' property through wrong view: all are called preparation for stealing arising from delusion. As for preparation for wrong conduct in desire that arises from greed: toward another's wife and so on one arouses a defiled mind, or to seek another's wealth, position, name or respect, or to rescue oneself or another, from a mind of greed the preparation for sexual activity arises. As for that arising from hatred: to remove an enemy, one forms a mind of fury and begins the preparation for sexual activity. As for that arising from delusion: for example, the Persians praise sexual relations with one's mother and the like. Also the Brahmins praise, in the cow sacrifice, men and women who take up the cow vow, sucking water and chewing grass, staying or walking, without distinguishing close or distant, mating with whomever they meet. Also certain non-Buddhists say: All women are like mortars, flowers, fruits, cooked food, steps, roads, bridges and boats, which people of the world should use in common. These preparations arise from delusion. The four paths of speech karma, false speech and the others, arise from greed and hatred, and should be explained like the above. As for the preparation of false speech that arises from delusion, as an outside treatise says:

若人因戲笑，嫁娶對女王，

If a person, in jest, at a marriage, before a woman or a king,

及救命救財，虛誑語無罪。

Or to save life or wealth, speaks falsely, there is no fault.

又因邪見起虛誑語、離間語等所有加行，當知一切從痴所生。又諸吠陀及餘邪論，皆雜穢語攝，加行從痴生。貪瞋等三既無加行，如何可說從貪等生？以從三根無間生故，可說貪等從三根生。謂或有時從貪無間生貪業道，從二亦然。瞋及邪見從三亦爾。已說不善從三根生。善復云何？頌曰：

Also, all the preparations of false speech, divisive speech and the like that arise through wrong view should be known to arise from delusion. Also the Vedas and other wrong treatises are all included in idle chatter, and their preparation arises from delusion. Since greed, hatred and the other two have no preparation, how can one say they arise from greed and so on? Because they arise immediately after the three roots, one can say greed and the others arise from the three roots. That is, sometimes the path of karma of greed arises immediately after greed, and likewise after the other two. The same holds for hatred and for wrong view with the three. The arising of unwholesome karma from the three roots has been explained. How about good? The verse says:

善於三位中，皆三善根起。

In the three stages of the good, all arise from the three good roots.

論曰：諸善業道所有加行根本後起，皆從無貪無瞋無痴善根所起，以善三位皆是善心所等起故、善心必與三種善根共相應故。此善三位其相云何？謂遠離前不善三位離惡加行即善加行，離惡根本即善根本，離惡後起即善後起。且如勤策受具戒時，來入戒壇禮苾芻眾，至誠發語請親教師，乃至一白二羯磨等，皆名為善業道加行。第三羯磨竟一剎那中，表無表業名根本業道。從此以後至說四依，及餘依前相續隨轉表無表業，皆名後起。如先所說，非諸業道一切皆由三根究竟，何根究竟何業道耶？頌曰：

The treatise says: All the preparation, root and aftermath of good paths of karma arise from the good roots of non-greed, non-hatred and non-delusion, because the three good stages are all aroused by good mental factors, and good mind is necessarily accompanied by the three good roots. What are the characters of these three good stages? That is, they are the reverse of the three unwholesome stages: separation from the preparation for evil is good preparation, separation from the root of evil is good root, and separation from the aftermath of evil is good aftermath. For example, when a novice is urged to receive the full precepts, he enters the ordination platform and bows to the assembly of monks, sincerely utters the request to the preceptor, and so on through the one motion and the two announcements; all of these are called the preparation of the good path of karma. In the single moment when the third announcement is finished, the manifest and unmanifest karma is called the root path of karma. From then on, up to the recitation of the four supports, and the other manifest and unmanifest karma that continue following the earlier one, are all called aftermath. As said earlier, it is not that all paths of karma are completed through the three roots; then through which root is which path of karma completed? The verse says:

殺麁語瞋恚，究竟皆由瞋，

Killing, harsh speech and ill will are all completed through hatred,

盜邪行及貪，皆由貪究竟，

Stealing, wrong conduct and covetousness are all completed through greed,

邪見痴究竟，許所餘由三。

Wrong view is completed through delusion; the others are held to come through all three.

論曰：惡業道中殺生、麁語、瞋恚業道，由瞋究竟，要無所顧極麁惡心現在前時此三成故。諸不與取、欲邪行、貪，此三業道由貪究竟，要有所顧極染汙心現在前時此三成故。邪見究竟要由愚痴，由上品痴現前成故。虛誑、離間、雜穢語三，許一一由三根究竟，以貪瞋等現在前時一一能令此三成故。諸惡業道何處起耶？頌曰：

The treatise says: Among the evil paths of karma, killing, harsh speech and ill will are completed through hatred, because these three are accomplished only when an extremely coarse and evil mind, with no regard, is present. Taking what is not given, wrong conduct in desire and covetousness, these three paths of karma are completed through greed, because these three are accomplished only when an extremely defiled mind, with some regard, is present. The completion of wrong view must be through ignorance, because it is accomplished by the appearance of the highest grade of delusion. False speech, divisive speech and idle chatter are each held to be completed through the three roots, because when greed, hatred and the others are present, each can accomplish these three. Where do the evil paths of karma arise? The verse says:

有情具名色，名身等處起。

Sentient beings, goods, name and form; they arise in name groups and the like.

論曰：如前所說四節業道，三三一三隨其次第於有情等四處而生。謂殺等三有情處起，偷盜等三眾具處起，唯邪見一名色處起，虛誑語等三名身等處起。有起加行定欲殺他，而與所殺生俱死或前死，亦得根本業道罪耶？頌曰：

The treatise says: As for the paths of karma explained earlier in four sections, three, three, one and three arise, in order, in the four places beginning with sentient beings. That is, killing and the other two arise in the place of sentient beings, stealing and the other two in the place of goods, wrong view alone in the place of name and form, and false speech and the other two in the place of name groups and the like. If someone has begun the preparation for killing, firmly intending to kill another, but dies together with or before the one to be killed, does he obtain the guilt of the root path of karma? The verse says:

俱死及前死，無根依別故。

Dying together or dying first, there is no root, because the basis is different.

論曰：若能殺者與所殺生俱時命終、或在前死，彼定不得根本業道。故有問言：頗有殺者起殺加行及令果滿，而彼不為殺罪觸耶？曰：有。云何？謂能殺者與所殺生俱死、前死。何緣如是？以所殺生其命猶存，不可令彼能殺生者成殺罪故。非能殺者其命已終可得殺罪，別依生故。謂殺加行所依止身今已斷滅，雖有別類身同分生，非罪依止。此曾未起殺生加行，成殺業道理不應然。若有多人集為軍眾欲殺怨敵、或獵獸等，於中隨有一殺生時，何人得成殺生業道？頌曰：

The treatise says: If the killer dies at the same time as the one he would kill, or dies earlier, he certainly does not obtain the root path of karma. Therefore someone asks: Is there a case in which a killer begins the preparation for killing and causes the result to be fulfilled, yet is not touched by the guilt of killing? Answer: There is. How? That is, when the killer dies together with or before the one to be killed. Why so? Because the life of the one to be killed still remains, and it cannot cause the killer to complete the guilt of killing. It is not that one whose life has already ended can obtain the guilt of killing, because the basis of birth is different. That is, the body that was the basis of the preparation for killing has now been cut off, and although a body of a different kind arises with a class-sameness, it is not the basis of the guilt. That person has never begun the preparation for killing, so it is not right that he complete the path of killing. If many people gather as an army to kill an enemy, or to hunt beasts and the like, and one of them kills, who completes the path of killing? The verse says:

軍等若同事，皆成如作者。

If an army and the like share one purpose, all complete it as if they were the doer.

論曰：於軍等中若隨有一作殺生事，如自作者，一切皆成殺生業道，由彼同許為一事故。如為一事展轉相教，故一殺生餘皆得罪。若有他力逼入此中，因即同心亦成殺罪。唯除若有立誓自要救自命緣亦不行殺，雖由他力逼在此中，而無殺心故無殺罪。今次應辯成業道相。謂齊何量名曰殺生？乃至齊何名為邪見？且先分別殺生相者，頌曰：

The treatise says: Among an army and the like, if any one of them does the act of killing, all of them complete the path of killing as if they had done it themselves, because they all share the same purpose of one act. Just as when several people urge one another toward a single act, so for one killing the others all incur the guilt. If someone is forced into the group by the power of others, and then shares their mind, he also completes the guilt of killing. The exception is one who has taken a vow and would not kill even to save his own life; though forced into the group by others, he has no mind to kill and so has no guilt of killing. Now one should explain the characteristics of completing a path of karma: up to what extent is it called killing, and up to what is it called wrong view? First, to distinguish the characteristics of killing, the verse says:

殺生由故思，他想不誤殺。

Killing is by intentional volition, perceiving another, without error.

論曰：要由先發欲殺故思，於他有情他有情想，作殺加行不誤而殺。謂唯殺彼不漫殺餘，齊此名為殺生業道。有猶豫殺亦成殺生，謂彼先於所欲殺境心懷猶豫為生非生？設復是生為彼非彼？後起決志，若是若非我定當殺。由心無顧，若殺有情亦成業道。於剎那滅蘊，如何成殺生？息風名生，依身心轉，若有令斷不更續生，如滅燈光、鈴聲名殺。或復生者即是命根，若有令斷不續名殺。謂以惡心隔斷他命，乃至一念應生不生，唯此非餘，殺罪所觸。此所斷命為屬於誰？謂命若無彼便死者，既標第六，非我而誰？破我論中當廣思擇。故薄伽梵所說頌言：

The treatise says: It must be that one has first formed the intentional volition to kill, toward another sentient being with the perception of another sentient being, and made the preparation for killing and killed without error. That is, one kills only that being and does not kill others at random; up to this point it is called the path of karma of killing. Killing with hesitation also completes killing: that is, he first hesitated in his mind about the object to be killed, whether it is alive or not alive, and if alive whether it is that one or not, and later decided: whether it is or not, I will certainly kill. Because his mind has no regard, if he kills a sentient being it also completes the path of karma. How can there be killing in aggregates that perish in a moment? The breath is called life, and it proceeds relying on body and mind; if someone cuts it off so that it does not continue to arise, like the extinction of a lamp's light or a bell's sound, that is called killing. Or the one who is alive is simply the life faculty, and if someone cuts it off so that it does not continue, that is called killing. That is, with an evil mind one cuts off another's life, even one moment of what ought to arise but does not, and only this and nothing else is touched by the guilt of killing. To whom does this cut-off life belong? If without it that being dies, then since it is marked as the sixth, who is it if not the self? In the treatise refuting the self it will be discussed at length. So the verse spoken by the Bhagavan says:

壽煖及與識，三法捨身時，

Life, heat and consciousness, when these three dharmas leave the body,

所捨身僵仆，如木無思覺。

The abandoned body lies stiff, like wood without thought or feeling.

故有根身名有命者，無根名死其理決然。離繫者言，不思而殺亦得殺罪。猶如觸火，設不先思亦被燒害。若爾汝等遇見他妻，或誤觸身亦應有罪。又善心者拔離繫髮，或師慈心勸修苦行，或因施主宿食不消，此等皆應獲苦他罪。又胎與母互為苦因，應母與胎有苦他罪。又所殺者既與殺合，亦應如火能燒自依，不應但令能殺得罪。又遣他殺，殺罪應無，如火不燒教觸火者。又諸木等應為罪觸，如舍等崩亦害生故。又非但喻，立義可成。已分別殺生。當辯不與取。頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) Therefore the body with faculties is called one with life, and without faculties it is called dead; this principle is settled. The Nirgranthas say that one who kills without intent also gets the guilt of killing, just as touching fire burns even without prior intent. If so, when you see another's wife, or touch her body by mistake, you too should have fault. Also one with a good mind who pulls out a hair, or a teacher who with a compassionate mind urges ascetic practice, or a donor whose food has not been digested, all these should get the fault of causing suffering to others. Also the fetus and the mother are causes of suffering for each other, so the mother and fetus should have the fault of causing suffering to others. Also, since the one killed is joined with the killer, he should also be like fire that burns what it relies on, and it should not be that only the killer incurs guilt. Also if one sends another to kill, there should be no guilt of killing, as fire does not burn the one who taught another to touch fire. Also wood and the like should be touched by the guilt, as the collapse of a house also kills beings. Moreover this is not merely an analogy; the doctrine can be established. The distinction of killing has been completed. Next one should explain taking what is not given. The verse says:

不與取他物，力竊取屬己。

Taking what is not given from others, by force or stealth, making it one's own.

論曰：前不誤等如其所應，流至後門故不重說。謂要先發欲盜故思，於他物中起他物想，或力或竊起盜加行，不誤而取令屬己身，齊此名為不與取罪。若有盜取窣堵波物，彼於如來得偷盜罪，以佛臨欲入涅槃時，哀愍世間總受所施。有餘師說：望守護者。若有掘取無主伏藏，於國主邊得偷盜罪。若有盜取諸迴轉物，已作羯磨於界內僧、若羯磨未成，普於佛弟子得偷盜罪。餘例應思。已辯不與取。當辯欲邪行。頌曰：

The treatise says: What was said earlier about 'without error' and the like should apply as appropriate, and it flows down to the later gates, so it is not repeated. That is, one must first have formed the intentional volition to steal, and toward another's goods hold the perception of another's, and by force or by stealth begin the preparation for stealing, and without error take it and make it belong to oneself; up to this point it is called the guilt of taking what is not given. If one steals the property of a stupa, one incurs the guilt of stealing from the Tathagata, because when the Buddha was about to enter nirvana, out of compassion for the world he accepted all that was given. Some other teachers say: It is with reference to the guardians. If one digs up an ownerless buried treasure, one incurs the guilt of stealing from the ruler of the country. If one steals goods that are in circulation, then if the formal act has been done, one incurs the guilt of stealing from the Sangha within the boundary; if the act is not yet completed, one incurs the guilt of stealing from all disciples of the Buddha. The rest should be considered by analogy. Taking what is not given has been explained. Next one should explain wrong conduct in desire. The verse says:

欲邪行四種，行所不應行。

Wrong conduct in desire has four kinds: acting where one should not act.

論曰：總有四種行不應行，皆得名為欲邪行罪：一於非境行不應行，謂行於他所攝妻妾或母或父或父母親乃至或王所守護境。二於非道行不應行，謂於自妻口及餘道。三於非處行不應行，謂於寺中制多逈處。四於非時行不應行。非時者何？謂懷胎時、飲兒乳時、受齋戒時。設自妻妾亦犯邪行。有說：若夫許受齋戒而有所犯方謂非時。既不誤言，亦流至此。若於他婦謂是己妻，或於己妻謂為他婦，道非道等但有誤心，雖有所行而非業道。若於此他婦作餘他婦想，行非梵行成業道耶？有說亦成，以於他婦起婬加行及受用故。有說不成，如殺業道於此起加行，於餘究竟故。於苾芻尼行非梵行，為從何處得業道耶？此從國王不忍許故。於自妻妾受齋戒時尚不應行，況出家者。若於童女行非梵行，為從何處得業道耶？若已許他，於所許處；未許他者，於能護人；此及所餘，皆於王得。已辯欲邪行。當辯虛誑語。頌曰：

The treatise says: There are four kinds of acting where one should not, all of which are called the guilt of wrong conduct in desire. First, acting where one should not in an improper object, namely toward a wife or concubine under another's protection, or one under the protection of her mother, father or relatives, or even one guarded by the king. Second, acting where one should not by an improper path, namely toward one's own wife by the mouth or other paths. Third, acting where one should not in an improper place, namely in a temple or at a remote shrine. Fourth, acting where one should not at an improper time. What is an improper time? It is when she is pregnant, when she is nursing a child, or when she has taken up the fasting precepts. Even with one's own wife or concubine, one commits wrong conduct. Some say: It is only when the husband has agreed to take the fasting precepts and transgresses that it is called an improper time. Since 'without error' was already stated, this too flows down to here. If one regards another's wife as one's own wife, or one's own wife as another's wife, or if there is mistaken mind about the path or not the path and so on, then although one acts, it is not a path of karma. If with this other woman one has the perception of some other woman and engages in unchaste conduct, does this complete a path of karma? Some say it does, because one has begun the preparation for sex with another's wife and enjoyed her. Some say it does not, as in the path of killing, where the preparation is begun for one and completed for another. When one engages in unchaste conduct with a nun, from where is the path of karma obtained? It is because the king would not tolerate or permit it. Even with one's own wife or concubine, one should not do it when she has taken the fasting precepts, how much less with a renunciant. If one engages in unchaste conduct with a young girl, from where is the path of karma obtained? If she has been promised to another, from the one to whom she was promised; if she has not been promised, from the one who protects her; this and other cases are all obtained from the king. Wrong conduct in desire has been explained. Next one should explain false speech. The verse says:

染異想發言，解義虛誑語。

With a defiled mind, speaking with a different perception, and the meaning being understood, is false speech.

論曰：於所說義異想發言，及所誑者解所說義，染心不誤成虛誑語。若所誑者未解言義，此言是何？是雜穢語。既虛誑語是所發言，有多字成言，何時成業道？與最後字俱生表聲及無表業成此業道。或隨何時所誑解義，表無表業成此業道。前字俱行皆此加行，所言解義定據何時？為據已聞正解名解？為據正聞能解名解？若爾何失？若據已聞正解名解，言所詮義意識所知，語表耳識俱時滅故，應此業道唯無表成。若據正聞能解名解，雖無有失然未了知，如何正聞可名能解？善言義者無迷亂緣，耳識已生名為能解，如無失者應取為宗。經說諸言略有十六，謂於不見不聞不覺不知事中言實見等，或於所見所聞所覺所知事中言不見等，如是八種名非聖言。若於不見乃至不知言不見等，或於所見乃至所知言實見等，如是八種名為聖言。何等名為所見等相？頌曰：

The treatise says: When one speaks with a perception different from the meaning spoken, and the one deceived understands the meaning spoken, with a defiled mind and without error, it completes false speech. If the one deceived has not understood the meaning of the words, what are those words? They are idle chatter. Since false speech is a spoken utterance, and a word is formed of many syllables, at what moment is the path of karma completed? The path of karma is completed with the manifest sound that arises together with the last syllable and the unmanifest karma. Or it is completed with manifest and unmanifest karma at whatever time the deceived one understands the meaning. What arises together with the earlier syllables is all preparation. As for the understanding of the meaning of the words, is it fixed at what time? Is understanding determined by having already heard and truly understanding? Or is understanding determined by one who hears and is able to understand? What is the fault of either? If understanding is by having already heard and truly understanding, the meaning conveyed by words is known by mental consciousness, while the verbal manifest ceases at the same time as the ear consciousness, so this path of karma should be completed only by the unmanifest. If understanding is determined by one who hears and is able to understand, although there is no fault, yet it is not yet understood, so how can one who is hearing be called able to understand? One who is good at the meaning of words, with no condition of confusion, and in whom ear consciousness has arisen, is called able to understand; as for the position without fault, it should be taken as the doctrine. The sutra says that words are briefly of sixteen kinds, namely, regarding things not seen, not heard, not sensed, not known, saying one truly saw them and so on, or regarding things seen, heard, sensed and known, saying one did not see them and so on; these eight kinds are called non-noble speech. If one says of what is not seen up to what is not known that one did not see it and so on, or says of what is seen up to what is known that one truly saw it, these eight kinds are called noble speech. What are the characteristics of what is seen and so on? The verse says:

由眼耳意識，並餘三所證，

Realized by eye, ear and mental consciousness, and by the other three,

如次第名為，所見聞知覺。

They are called, in order, the seen, the heard, the known and the sensed.

論曰：毘婆沙師作如是說：若境由眼識所證名所見，若境由耳識所證名所聞，若境由意識所證名所知，若境由鼻識舌識及身識所證名所覺。所以然者，香味觸三無記性故如死無覺，故能證者偏立覺名。何證知然？由經理證。言由經者，謂契經說：佛告大母：汝意云何？諸所有色非汝眼見、非汝曾見、非汝當見、非希求見，汝為因此起欲起貪、起親起愛、起阿賴耶、起尼延底、起耽著不？不爾。大德！諸所有聲非汝耳聞，廣說乃至諸所有法非汝意知，廣說乃至，不爾。大德！復告大母：汝於此中應知所見，唯有所見應知所聞所覺所知，唯有所聞所覺所知。此經既於色聲法境說為所見所聞所知，准此定於香等三境總合建立一所覺名。若不許然，何名所覺？又香味觸在所見等外，於彼三境應不起言說。是名為理。此證不成，且經非證，經義別故。非此經中世尊為欲決判見等四所言相，然見此經所說義者，謂佛勸彼於六境中及於見等四所言事，應知但有所見等言，不應增益愛非愛相。若爾，何相名所見等？有餘師說：若是五根現所證境名為所見，若他傳說名為所聞，若運自心以種種理比度所許名為所覺，若意現證名為所知。於五境中一一容起見聞覺知四種言說，於第六境除見有三，由此覺名非無所目，香等三境言說非無，故彼理言亦為無理。先軌範師作如是說：眼所現見名為所見，從他傳聞名為所聞，自運己心諸所思搆名為所覺，自內所受及自所證名為所知。且止傍言，應申正論。頗有由身表異想義不由發語成虛誑語耶？曰：有。故論言：頗有不動身殺生罪觸耶？曰：有，謂發語。頗有不發語誑語罪觸耶？曰：有，謂動身。頗有不動身不發語二罪所觸耶？曰：有，謂仙人意憤及布灑他時。若不動身亦不發語，欲無無表離表而生，此二如何得成業道？於如是難應設劬勞。已辯虛誑語。當辯餘三語。頌曰：

The treatise says: The Vaibhasika masters say: If an object is realized by eye consciousness it is called the seen; if by ear consciousness, the heard; if by mental consciousness, the known; if by the consciousness of nose, tongue or body, the sensed. Why is it so? Because smell, taste and touch are of indeterminate nature, like a corpse without sensation, so what realizes them is specially given the name of 'sensing'. How is this known? By scripture and by reasoning. By scripture, as the sutra says: The Buddha said to the Great Mother: What do you think? Of all forms that you do not see with your eyes, have not seen, will not see, and do not seek to see, do you give rise to desire or greed, to closeness or love, to attachment (alaya), to pursuit (nirayati), or to clinging because of them? She said: Not so, Reverend One. Of all sounds you do not hear with your ears, and so on at length up to all dharmas that you do not know with your mind, and so on at length, not so, Reverend One. He again said to the Great Mother: In this you should know what is seen, and only what is seen should be known, and what is heard, sensed and known, and only what is heard, sensed and known. Since this sutra speaks of the objects of form, sound and dharma as seen, heard and known, by analogy the three objects of smell and so on are together established under the one name 'sensed'. If this is not accepted, what is called 'sensed'? Also smell, taste and touch are outside the seen and so on, and one should not make statements about those three objects. This is the reasoning. This proof is not established: first, the sutra is not a proof, because the meaning of the sutra is different. In this sutra the World-Honored One does not intend to decide the characteristics of the four kinds of speech such as 'seen'; rather, one sees that the meaning spoken of in this sutra is that the Buddha urges her that, among the six objects and the things spoken of as seen and so on, one should know that there are only the words 'seen' and the rest, and should not add notions of loved and unloved. If so, what characteristics are called 'seen' and so on? Some other teachers say: What is realized directly by the five faculties is called the seen; what is transmitted by others is called the heard; what one infers with one's own mind by various reasonings and approves is called the sensed; what is directly realized by the mind is called the known. For each of the five objects, four kinds of speech, seen, heard, sensed and known, can arise; for the sixth object, apart from the seen there are three. For this reason the name 'sensed' is not without a referent, and statements about smell and the rest three objects are not absent, so their argument is also unreasonable. The earlier master said: What is directly seen by the eye is called the seen, what is heard from others is called the heard, what one conceives by one's own mind is called the sensed, and what one receives inwardly and realizes oneself is called the known. Let us set aside this digression and state the main discussion. Is there a case where false speech is completed by a different perception expressed through bodily manifest action, without uttering words? Yes. Therefore the treatise says: Is there a case where one is touched by the guilt of killing without moving the body? Yes, namely uttering words. Is there a case where one is touched by the guilt of false speech without uttering words? Yes, namely moving the body. Is there a case where one is touched by both faults without moving the body or uttering words? Yes, namely a sage's mind of anger, and at the time of the poshadha (day of reciting the precepts). If one neither moves the body nor utters words, and there is no desire for the unmanifest to arise apart from the manifest, how can these two complete the path of karma? One should make efforts regarding such a difficulty. False speech has been explained. Next one should explain the other three kinds of speech. The verse says:

染心壞他語，說名離間語，

Speech that breaks others apart with a defiled mind is called divisive speech,

非愛麁惡語，諸染雜穢語，

Unloved and coarse words are harsh speech, and all defiled speech is idle chatter,

餘說異三染，佞歌邪論等。

The rest are said to be defiled differently from the three: flattery, songs, wrong treatises and the like.

論曰：若染汙心發壞他語，若他壞不壞俱成離間語。解義不誤，流至此中。若以染心發非愛語毀呰於他，名麁惡語。前染心語流至此故，解義不誤亦與前同。謂本期心所欲罵者，解所說義業道方成。一切染心所發諸語名雜穢語。所以者何？染所發言皆雜穢故。唯前語字流至此中。有餘師說：異虛誑等前三種語，所有一切染心發言名雜穢語，此謂佞歌及邪論等。佞謂諂佞，如有苾芻邪命居懷發諂佞語。歌謂歌詠，如世有人以染汙心諷吟相調，及倡伎者為悅他情以染汙心作諸詞曲。言邪論者，謂廣辯說諸不正見所執言詞。等謂染心所發悲嘆，及諸世俗戲論言詞。但異前三染心所發，一切皆是雜穢語收。輪王現時亦有歌詠，如何不是雜穢語收？由彼語從出離心發，能引出離，非預染心。有餘師言：爾時亦有成嫁娶等所發染言，由過輕故不成業道。已辯三語。當辯意三。頌曰：

The treatise says: If a defiled mind utters words that break others apart, then whether the other party is actually broken or not, it constitutes divisive speech once the meaning is understood without error; the "flow" of the earlier verse reaches here. If, with a defiled mind, one utters unpleasant words that revile others, it is called harsh speech. Since the defiled-mind speech of the earlier case flows to this one, so too the understanding of the meaning without error is the same as before: if the person originally intended to scold, the course of action is complete once the meaning of what was said is understood. All words uttered by a defiled mind are called idle chatter. Why? Because all words uttered by defilement are mixed and foul. Only the earlier words "flow" to this one. Some other masters say: Apart from the earlier three kinds of speech, namely false and so on, all words uttered by a defiled mind are called idle chatter, meaning flattering songs and heretical treatises and the like. Flattery is obsequiousness, as when a bhikshu who lives by wrong livelihood utters flattering words in his heart. Songs are singing, as when people in the world with defiled minds chant to tease one another, and performers with defiled minds compose lyrics and tunes to please others. Heretical treatises are the widespread explanation of words held by wrong views. "And so on" means laments uttered by a defiled mind, and the various worldly frivolous words. All defiled-mind utterances other than the earlier three are included in idle chatter. When a Wheel-Turning King appears there is also singing; how is that not included in idle chatter? Because those words arise from a mind of renunciation, can lead to renunciation, and do not presuppose defilement. Other masters say: At that time there are also defiled words spoken in arranging marriages and the like, but because they are too slight they do not constitute a course of action. The three kinds of speech have been explained. The three of mind should now be explained. The verse says:

惡欲他財貪，憎有情瞋恚，

Wicked desire for others' wealth is greed, hatred of sentient beings is ill will,

撥善惡等見，名邪見業道。

Denying good and evil and the like is wrong view; these are called the courses of action.

論曰：於他財物惡欲名貪，謂於他財非理起欲，如何令彼屬我非他，起力竊心耽求他物，如是惡欲名貪業道。有餘師言：諸欲界愛皆貪業道。所以者何？《五蓋經》中依貪欲蓋，佛說應斷此世間貪，故知貪名總說欲愛。有說：欲愛雖盡名貪，而不可說皆成業道，此惡行中攝麁品故。勿輪王世及北俱盧所起欲貪成貪業道。於有情類憎恚名瞋，謂於他有情慾為傷害事，如是憎恚名瞋業道。於善惡等惡見撥無，此見名為邪見業道。如經說：無施與、無愛樂、無祠祀、無妙行、無惡行、無妙惡行業果異熟、無此世間無彼世間、無母無父、無化生有情、世間無沙門、或婆羅門是阿羅漢。彼經具顯謗業謗果謗聖邪見，此頌舉初等言攝後。

The treatise says: Wicked desire for the property of others is called greed, namely giving rise unreasonably to desire for others' wealth, thinking how to make it mine and not theirs, and with a mind to seize by force, being bent on getting others' things; such wicked desire is called the course of action of greed. Some other masters say: All craving of the desire realm is the course of action of greed. Why? Because in the Sutra of the Five Hindrances the Buddha, speaking on the hindrance of greed and desire, said that one should cut off this worldly greed, and so one knows that greed is a general name for craving of desire. Some say: Although all craving of desire is called greed, it cannot be said that all becomes a course of action, because this is included among the coarse category of evil conduct. Otherwise the desire and greed that arise in the age of a Wheel-Turning King and in Uttarakuru would become the course of action of greed. Hatred of sentient beings is called ill will, namely desiring to harm other sentient beings; such hatred is called the course of action of ill will. Wicked views denying good and evil and the like are called the course of action of wrong view. As the sutra says: There is no giving, no love of offering, no sacrifice, no good conduct, no evil conduct, no ripening of the fruit of good and evil conduct, no this world or other world, no mother or father, no beings born by transformation, and in the world there are no ascetics or brahmins who are arhats. That sutra fully shows wrong views that slander karma, slander its fruit and slander the noble ones; this verse cites the first and by "and the like" includes the rest.

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by the Tripitaka Master Xuanzang by imperial order

分別業品第四之五

Chapter 4, Analysis of Karma, Part 5

如是已辯十業道相。依何義名業道？頌曰：

Having thus explained the characteristics of the ten courses of action, on what meaning is it called a course of action? The verse says:

此中三唯道，七業亦道故。

Among these, three are only courses, and seven are also karma, because they are courses of karma.

論曰：十業道中後三唯道，業之道故立業道名。彼相應思說名為業，彼轉故轉、彼行故行，如彼勢力而造作故。前七是業，身語業故，亦業之道，思所遊故。由能等起身語業思，託身語業為境轉故。業業之道立業道名，故於此中言業道者，具顯業道業業道義。雖不同類而一為餘，於世典中俱極成故。離殺等七、無貪等三立業道名，類此應釋。此加行後起，何緣非業道？為此依此彼方轉故。又前說此攝麁品故。又若由此有減有增，令內外物有增有減，立為業道，異此不然。譬喻論師執貪瞋等即是意業，依何義釋彼名業道？應問彼師。然亦可言：彼是意業惡趣道故立業道名，或互相乘皆名業道。如是所說十惡業道，皆與善法現起相違。諸斷善根由何業道？斷續善相差別云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Among the ten courses of action, the last three are only courses; because they are the path of karma they are named courses of action. The volition associated with them is called karma; it is called "turning" because it turns in line with them, and "moving" because it moves in line with them, since one acts by their power. The first seven are karma, being bodily and verbal karma, and are also the course of karma, because they are what volition travels through. Because the volition that gives rise to bodily and verbal karma operates by taking bodily and verbal karma as its object, the karma and the course of karma are named a course of action; therefore when it is said "course of action" here, the meaning of both the course of action and the karma that is the course is fully shown. Although they are not of the same kind, one being for the other is fully established in worldly texts. The abstentions from killing and so on, the seven, and non-greed and so on, the three, are named courses of action, and should be explained in the same way. Why is the preparatory stage and the later arising not a course of action? Because the course is that on which the other turns. Also, as said before, this is included in the coarse category. Also, if by this the inner and outer things increase or decrease and so it is established as a course of action, then it is otherwise not so. The Sautrantika masters hold that greed, ill will and so on are themselves mental karma; on what meaning do they explain these as courses of action? One should ask those masters. But one might also say: They are mental karma and the path to evil destinies, and so are established as courses of action, or they ride on each other and are all called courses of action. The ten courses of evil karma spoken of in this way are all contrary to the arising of wholesome dharmas. By what course of action is the severing of good roots, and how do the severing and reconnecting of wholesome states differ? The verse says:

唯邪見斷善，所斷欲生得，

Only wrong view severs good roots; what is severed is the innate one of the desire realm,

撥因果一切，漸斷二俱捨。

Denying cause and effect, all of it, severing gradually; both are abandoned.

人三洲男女，見行斷非得，

In humans of the three continents, male or female, the one of view-practice severs, not the one who has attained,

續善疑有見，頓現除逆者。

Reconnecting good: doubt and right view, at once and presently, except for those who have committed heinous crimes.

論曰：惡業道中唯有上品圓滿邪見能斷善根。若爾，何緣本論中說云何上品諸不善根，謂諸不善根能斷善根者？或離欲位最初所除，由不善根能引邪見，故邪見事推在彼根。如火燒村，火由賊起，故世間說彼賊燒村。何等善根為此所斷？謂唯欲界生得善根，色無色善先不成故。《施設足論》當云何通？如彼論言：唯由此量是人已斷三界善根，依上善根得更遠說，令此相續非彼器故。何緣唯斷生得善根？加行善根先已退故。緣何邪見能斷善根？謂定撥無因果邪見。撥無因者，謂定撥無妙行惡行。撥無果者，謂定撥無彼果異熟。有餘師說：此二邪見猶如無間解脫道別。有餘師說：斷善邪見唯緣有漏非無漏緣，唯自界緣不緣他界。由彼唯作相應隨眠，境不隨增，勢力劣故。如是說者通一切緣，隨因亦增，有強力故。有餘師說：九品善根由一剎那邪見頓斷，如見道斷見所斷惑。如是說者漸斷善根，謂九品善根由九品邪見逆順相對漸次而斷。如修道斷修所斷惑，即下下邪見能斷上上善根，乃至下下善根上上邪見所斷。若作是說，符本論文。如本論言：云何名微俱行善根？謂斷善根時最後所捨者，由捨彼故名斷善根。若爾，彼文何理復說：云何上品諸不善根？謂諸不善根能斷善根者。彼依究竟密說此言，由此善根斷無餘故。謂若猶有一品善根，餘品善根因斯可起，未可說彼名斷善根；斷究竟時方名斷善，故唯說上品名能斷善根。有餘師言：斷九品善終無中出如見道中。如是說者，通出不出。有餘師說：先捨律儀後斷善根，未易捨故。如是說者，若彼律儀是此品心所等起果，此品心斷捨彼律儀，以果與因品類同故。為在何處能斷善根？人趣三洲非在惡趣亦非天趣。所以者何？以惡趣中染不染慧不堅牢故，以天趣中現見善惡諸業果故。言三洲者，除北俱盧，彼無極惡阿世耶故。有餘師說：唯贍部洲。若爾，便違本論所說。

The treatise says: Among the evil courses of action, only the fully complete wrong view of the highest grade can sever good roots. If so, why does the original treatise say: What are the unwholesome roots of the highest grade? They are the unwholesome roots that can sever good roots. Or: What is first removed in the stage of freedom from desire? Because the unwholesome roots can lead to wrong views, the matter of wrong view is attributed to those roots, as when fire burns a village and the fire arises from thieves, so the world says that thief burned the village. Which good roots are severed by this? Only the innate good roots of the desire realm, because the good roots of the form and formless realms are not previously accomplished. How should the Prajnaptipada treatise be reconciled? As that treatise says: By this measure one is a person who has severed the good roots of the three realms, and relying on the higher good roots one can say it is more remote, so that this continuity is not that vessel. Why are only innate good roots severed? Because the good roots of application have already regressed earlier. By what wrong view are good roots severed? By the wrong view that definitely denies cause and effect. Denying cause means definitely denying good and evil conduct. Denying effect means definitely denying their fruit of maturation. Other masters say: These two wrong views are like the uninterrupted path and the path of liberation, separately. Other masters say: The wrong view that severs good roots takes only what has outflows as its object, not what is without outflows, and only its own realm and not other realms. Because it acts only as an associated latent tendency, its object does not increase, and its power is weak. One who says this applies to all objects, that it also increases following the cause, has a strong force. Other masters say: The nine grades of good roots are severed all at once by a single moment of wrong view, as in the path of seeing the afflictions severed by seeing are cut off. One who says this severs good roots gradually holds that the nine grades of good roots are severed progressively by the nine grades of wrong view in reverse and forward order matching each other, as in the path of cultivation afflictions severed by cultivation are cut off, that is, the lowest wrong view can sever the highest good root, up to the highest wrong view severing the lowest good root. If one says this, it accords with the original text. As the original treatise says: What is called the subtle co-existing good root? It is the last thing abandoned at the time of severing the good roots, and because abandoning it, one is called one who has severed the good roots. If so, on what principle does that text then say: What are the unwholesome roots of the highest grade? They are the unwholesome roots that can sever good roots. That was said in an esoteric sense of the ultimate: that when the good roots are severed there are no others. That is, if even one grade of good root still remains, the other grades of good roots can arise from it, and one cannot yet say that person has severed the good roots; only when the severance is ultimate is it called severing the good, and so only the highest grade is said to be able to sever good roots. Other masters say: When the nine grades of good roots are severed, they never reappear partway, as in the path of seeing. One who says this holds that it covers both emerging and not emerging. Other masters say: One first abandons the restraints and later severs the good roots, because they are not easily abandoned. One who says this holds that if that restraint is a fruit arisen from this grade of mental factors, that grade of mind severs and abandons that restraint, since the fruit and cause are of the same class. In what place can good roots be severed? In the human realm of the three continents, not in the evil destinies and not in the heavens. Why? Because in the evil destinies wisdom, whether defiled or not, is not firm, and in the heavens the fruits of good and evil karma are seen directly. The "three continents" excludes Uttarakuru, because there is no extremely evil disposition there. Other masters say: Only Jambudvipa. If so, that would contradict what the original treatise says.

如本論說：贍部洲人極少成八根，東西洲亦爾。如是斷善，依何類身？唯男女身，志意定故。有餘師說：亦非女身，欲勤慧等皆昧鈍故。若爾，便違本論所說。如本論說：若成女根定成八根，男根亦爾。為何行者能斷善根？唯見行人非愛行者，諸愛行者惡阿世耶極躁動故，諸見行者惡阿世耶極堅深故。由斯理趣，非扇搋等能斷善根，愛行類故。又此類人如惡趣故。此善根斷其體是何？善斷應知非得為體，以斷善位善得不生非得續生，替善根得非得生位，名斷善根。故斷善根非得為體。善根斷已由何復續？由疑有見。謂因果中有時生疑：此或應有？或生正見，定有非無。爾時善根得還續起，善得起故名續善根。有餘師言：九品漸續。如是說者，頓續善根然後後時漸漸現起，如頓除病氣力漸增。於現身中能續善不？亦有能續，除造逆人。經依彼人作如是說：彼定於現法，不能續善根。彼人定從地獄將歿、或即於彼將受生時能續善根，非餘位故。言將生位，謂中有中。將歿時言，謂彼將死。若由因力彼斷善根將死時續，若由緣力彼斷善根將生時續，由自他力應知亦爾。又意樂壞非加行壞斷善根者，是人現世能續善根。若意樂壞加行亦壞斷善根者，要身壞後方續善根。見壞戒不壞、見壞戒亦壞斷善根者，應知亦爾。有斷善根非墮邪定，應作四句。第一句者，謂布剌拏等。第二句者，謂未生怨等。第三句者，謂天授等。第四句者，謂除前相。已乘義便辯斷善根，今應復明本業道義。所說善惡二業道中，有幾並生與思俱轉？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) As the original treatise says: Very few people of Jambudvipa accomplish eight faculties, and the same holds for the eastern and western continents. In this severing of good, in what kind of body does it occur? Only in male or female bodies, because their will is determinate. Other masters say: Not in a female body either, because desire, effort, wisdom and so on are all dull. If so, that would contradict the original treatise. As the original treatise says: If one accomplishes the female faculty one definitely accomplishes eight faculties, and the male faculty likewise. What kind of practitioner can sever good roots? Only a person of view-practice, not of craving-practice, because those of craving-practice have extremely agitated evil dispositions, whereas those of view-practice have extremely firm and deep evil dispositions. By this reasoning, sandhas and the like cannot sever good roots, because they are of the craving type. Also this kind of person is like those in the evil destinies. What is the substance of this severing of good roots? One should know that the severing of good is not constituted by attainment: in the stage of severing good, the attainment of good does not arise, and non-attainment continues to arise, and in the stage where non-attainment arises in place of the attainment of good roots, it is called severing the good roots. Therefore the severing of good roots has non-attainment as its substance. After good roots are severed, by what are they reconnected? By doubt and right view. That is, regarding cause and effect, sometimes doubt arises: This may perhaps exist; or right view arises, that it definitely exists and does not not exist. At that time the attainment of good roots arises again, and because the attainment of good arises, it is called reconnecting the good roots. Other masters say: The nine grades are reconnected gradually. One who says this holds that the good roots are reconnected all at once, then gradually appear later, as when an illness is removed suddenly and strength gradually increases. In this present body can one reconnect the good? Yes, except for those who have committed heinous crimes. The sutra speaks of those persons in this way: They definitely cannot reconnect their good roots in the present life. Such a person definitely reconnects the good roots when about to die in hell, or just when about to be reborn there, and not at other times. "About to be reborn" refers to the intermediate existence; "about to die" refers to the time of dying there. If by the power of a cause one who severed the good roots reconnects at dying, and if by the power of conditions one reconnects when about to be reborn, one should know that the same applies by one's own or others' power. Also a person whose good roots are severed through corruption of inclination and not corruption of application can reconnect the good roots in the present life. If both inclination and application are corrupted, one reconnects the good roots only after the body is destroyed. Likewise for those whose view is corrupted but precepts are not corrupted, or whose view and precepts are both corrupted and good roots severed. There are those who sever good roots yet do not fall into the fixed wrong; one should make four alternatives. The first: Purana (Kasyapa) and others. The second: Ajatasatru and others. The third: Devadatta and others. The fourth: the remaining cases apart from the above. Having taken the opportunity to discuss the severing of good roots, we now should again clarify the original meaning of the courses of action. Among the two courses of good and evil action spoken of, how many arise together with the volition? The verse says:

業道思俱轉，不善一至八，

The courses of action turn together with volition, the unwholesome from one to eight,

善總開至十，別遮一八五。

The wholesome in general open up to ten, in particular they exclude one, eight and five.

論曰：於諸業道思俱轉中，且不善與思從一唯至八。一俱轉者，謂離所餘貪等三中隨一現起，若先加行造惡色業不染心時隨一究竟。二俱轉者，謂瞋心時究竟殺業，若起貪位成不與取、或欲邪行、或雜穢語。三俱轉者，謂以瞋心於屬他生俱時殺盜。若爾，所說偷盜業道由貪究竟，理應不成，依不異心所作究竟，故作如是決判應知，若先加行造惡色業貪等起時隨二究竟。四俱轉者，謂欲壞他說虛誑言或麁惡語，意業道一、語業道三。若先加行造惡色業，貪等現前隨三究竟。如是五六七皆如理應知。八俱轉者，謂先加行造作所餘六惡色業，自行邪欲俱時究竟，後三業道自力現前必不俱行，故無九十。如是已說不善業道與思俱轉數有不同。善業道與思，總開容至十。別據顯相，遮一八五。二俱轉者，謂善五識及依無色盡無生智現在前時無散善七。三俱轉者，謂與正見相應意識現在前時無七色善。四俱轉者，謂惡無記心現在前位，得近住近事勤策律儀。六俱轉者，謂善五識現在前時得上三戒。七俱轉者，謂善意識無隨轉色正見相應現在前時得上三戒，或惡無記心現前時得苾芻戒。九俱轉者，謂善五識現在前時得苾芻戒，或依無色盡無生智現在前時得苾芻戒，或靜慮攝盡無生智相應意識現在前時。十俱轉者，謂善意識無隨轉色正見相應現在前時得苾芻戒，或餘一切有隨轉色正見相應心正起位。別據顯相所遮如是，通據隱顯則無所遮。謂離律儀有一八五。一俱轉者，謂惡無記心現在前時得一支遠離。五俱轉者，謂善意識無隨轉色正見相應現在前時得二支等。八俱轉者，謂此意識現在前時得五支等。善惡業道於何界趣處？幾唯成就、幾亦通現行？頌曰：

The treatise says: Among the courses of action turning together with volition, first the unwholesome turn with volition from one up to eight. One turning together: in the state of one of greed, ill will and so on arising apart from the others, if one previously prepared and performed evil bodily karma, when the mind is not defiled one of them is completed. Two turning together: when with an ill-willed mind one completes the karma of killing, if greed arises it becomes taking what is not given, or sexual misconduct, or idle chatter. Three turning together: when with an ill-willed mind one kills and steals simultaneously what belongs to another living being. If so, the course of action of stealing as said would be completed through greed, and this reasoning would not hold; but because the completion is done without a different mind, so one should understand this to be definitively judged; if one previously prepared and performed evil bodily karma, when greed and so on arise, two are completed according to the case. Four turning together: wishing to ruin another and speaking false words or harsh words, one mental course of action and three verbal courses of action. If one previously prepared and performed evil bodily karma, when greed and so on appear, three are completed accordingly. Thus five, six and seven should be understood according to reason. Eight turning together: one previously prepared and performed the other six evil bodily acts, and own wicked desire is completed simultaneously; the last three courses of action, by their own power appearing, certainly do not occur together, and therefore there are no nine or ten. Thus it is said that the number of unwholesome courses of action turning together with volition differs. Wholesome courses of action with volition in general may open up to ten. Considered separately by their conspicuous aspects, one, eight and five are excluded. Two turning together: when the wholesome five consciousnesses and the knowledge of exhaustion and non-arising based on the formless realm are present, there are no seven kinds of distracted good. Three turning together: when mental consciousness associated with right view is present, there are no seven kinds of bodily good. Four turning together: in the stage when an evil or neutral mind is present, one obtains the restraint of approaching and dwelling near, of lay disciple, and of novice. Six turning together: when the wholesome five consciousnesses are present, one obtains the upper three precepts. Seven turning together: when wholesome mental consciousness without accompanying form is present, associated with right view, one obtains the upper three precepts; or when an evil or neutral mind is present one obtains the bhikshu precepts. Nine turning together: when the wholesome five consciousnesses are present, one obtains the bhikshu precepts; or when the knowledge of exhaustion and non-arising based on the formless realm is present one obtains the bhikshu precepts; or when mental consciousness associated with the knowledge of exhaustion and non-arising included in dhyana is present. Ten turning together: when wholesome mental consciousness without accompanying form is present, associated with right view, one obtains the bhikshu precepts; or at the moment when all other minds with accompanying form associated with right view arise. Considered separately according to conspicuous aspects, these are what is excluded; considered generally including the hidden and the evident, nothing is excluded. That is, apart from the restraints, there are one, eight and five. One turning together: when an evil or neutral mind is present one obtains one limb of abstention. Five turning together: when wholesome mental consciousness without accompanying form is present, associated with right view, one obtains two limbs and so on. Eight turning together: when this mental consciousness is present one obtains five limbs and so on. In what realms, destinies and places are the good and evil courses of action, and how many are only accomplished and how many also appear in action? The verse says:

不善地獄中，麁雜瞋通二，

The unwholesome in hell, harsh, idle and ill will cover both,

貪邪見成就，北洲成後三，

Greed and wrong view are accomplished only, in the northern continent the last three are accomplished,

雜語通現成，餘欲十通二。

Idle speech covers both appearing and accomplished, the other desire-realm ones, ten cover both.

善於一切處，後三通現成，

The good, in all places, the last three cover both appearing and accomplished,

無色無想天，前七唯成就，

In the formless realm and the realm of non-perception, the first seven are only accomplished,

餘處通成現，除地獄北洲。

In other places they cover both accomplished and appearing, except hells and the northern continent.

論曰：且於不善十業道中，那落迦中三通二種。謂麁惡語、雜穢語、瞋三種皆通現行成就？由相罵故有麁惡語，由悲叫故有雜穢語，身心麁強𢤱悷不調，由互相憎故有瞋恚。貪及邪見成而不行，無可愛境故、現見業果故。業盡死故無殺業道，無攝財物及女人故。無不與取及欲邪行，以無用故無虛誑語，即由此故及常離故無離間語。北俱盧洲貪瞋邪見皆定成就而不現行，不攝我所故、身心柔軟故、無惱害事故、無惡意樂故。唯雜穢語通現及成，由彼有時染心歌詠，無惡意樂故。彼無殺生等，壽量定故、無攝財物及女人故、身心軟故及無用故，隨其所應。彼人云何行非梵行？謂彼男女互起染時，執手相牽往詣樹下，樹枝垂覆知是應行，樹不垂枝並愧而別。除前地獄、北俱盧洲，餘欲界中十皆通二。謂於欲界天、鬼、傍生及人三洲，十惡業道皆通成現，然有差別。謂天、鬼、傍生前七業道唯有處中攝無不律儀，人三洲中二種俱有。雖諸天眾無有殺天，而或有時殺害餘趣。有餘師說：天亦殺天，斬首截腰其命方斷。已說不善。善業道中無貪等三，於三界五趣皆通二種，謂成就、現行。身語七支無色無想，但容成就必不現行。謂聖有情生無色界，成就過未無漏律儀，無想有情必成過未第四靜慮靜慮律儀。然聖隨依何地依止曾起曾滅無漏律儀？生無色時成彼過去，若未來世依五地身，無漏律儀皆得成就。餘界趣處除地獄、北洲，七善皆通現行及成就，然有差別。謂鬼、傍生有離律儀處中業道，若於色界唯有律儀，三洲、欲天皆具二種。不善善業道所得果云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Among the ten unwholesome courses of action, in hell three cover both kinds: harsh speech, idle speech and ill will cover both appearing and accomplished. Harsh speech occurs because of mutual cursing, idle speech occurs because of crying and lamenting, and ill will occurs because body and mind are coarse, fierce and perverse, and they hate one another. Greed and wrong view are accomplished but do not appear, because there is no lovable object and because the fruits of karma are directly seen. There is no killing as a course of action because they die only when karma is exhausted, and there are no possessions or women to take. There is no taking what is not given or sexual misconduct, since there is no use for them; there is no false speech for the same reason, and no divisive speech because of that same reason and because they are constantly apart. In Uttarakuru greed, ill will and wrong view are definitely accomplished but do not appear, because there is no sense of mine, their bodies and minds are soft, there are no harassing matters, and no evil dispositions. Only idle speech covers both appearing and accomplished, because they sometimes sing with a defiled mind and have no evil disposition. They have no killing and so on because their life span is fixed, there are no possessions or women to seize, their bodies and minds are soft and there is no use for them, as appropriate. How do those people practice non-celibate acts? When a man and woman there arouse defilement toward each other, they take hands and go together to a tree; if the branches droop over them they know it is proper to act, and if the tree does not droop its branches they part in shame. Apart from the above hells and Uttarakuru, in the rest of the desire realm all ten cover both. That is, in the desire-realm heavens, ghosts, animals and humans of the three continents, the ten evil courses of action all cover both accomplished and appearing, yet there are differences. Namely, for the heavens, ghosts and animals the first seven courses of action are included only in the middle, there being no non-restraint; in the three continents of humans both kinds exist. Although there is no killing of gods among the heavenly host, they may sometimes kill beings of other destinies. Other masters say: Gods also kill gods, and their life is cut off only when the head is severed or the waist is cut. The unwholesome has been explained. Among the wholesome courses of action, non-greed and the other two cover both kinds in all five destinies of the three realms, namely accomplished and appearing. The seven limbs of body and speech, in the formless realm and among non-perception beings, may be accomplished but certainly do not appear. That is, noble sentient beings born in the formless realm accomplish the undefiled restraint of past and future, and non-perception beings must accomplish the dhyana restraint of the fourth dhyana of past and future. Yet the noble, depending on whatever level they have relied on, have undefiled restraint that has arisen and ceased; when born in the formless realm it is accomplished as past, and in the future depending on the bodies of the five levels the undefiled restraint is all accomplished. In the other realms, destinies and places, apart from hells and the northern continent, the seven wholesome ones all cover both appearing and accomplished, yet there are differences. Ghosts and animals have courses of action in the middle that are restraint-free abstentions; in the form realm there is only restraint; the three continents and desire-realm heavens have both kinds. What fruits are obtained from unwholesome and wholesome courses of action? The verse says:

皆能招異熟，等流增上果，

All can bring about maturation, the fruit of outflow and the dominant fruit,

此令他受苦，斷命壞威故。

This causes others to suffer, cuts off life and ruins majesty.

論曰：且先分別十惡業道各招三果。其三者何？異熟、等流、增上別故。謂於十種若習若修若多所作，由此力故，生那落迦是異熟果。從彼出已來生此間，人同分中受等流果，謂殺生者壽量短促，不與取者資財乏匱，欲邪行者妻不貞良，虛誑語者多遭誹謗，離間語者親友乖穆，麁惡語者恆聞惡聲，雜穢語者言不威肅。貪者貪盛、瞋者瞋增、邪見者增痴，彼品痴增故。是名業道等流果別。人中短壽亦善業果，如何可說是殺等流？不言人壽即殺業果，但言由殺人壽量短，應知殺業與人命根作障礙因令不久住。此十所得增上果者，謂外所有諸資生具，由殺生故光澤鮮少，不與取故多遭霜雹，欲邪行故多諸塵埃，虛誑語故多諸臭穢，離間語故所居險曲，麁惡語故田多荊棘磽確醎鹵稼穡匪宜，雜穢語故時候變改。貪故果少、瞋故果辣，由邪見故果少或無。是名業道增上果別。為一殺業感那落迦異熟果已復令人趣壽量短促？為更有餘？有餘師言：即一殺業先感彼異熟後感此等流。有餘復言：二果因別，先謂加行、後謂根本。雖復總說一殺生言，而實通收根本眷屬。此中所說等流果言，非越異熟及增上果，據少相似假說等流。此十何緣各招三果？且初殺業於殺他位令他受苦斷命失威，謂殺生時令他受苦，故墮於地獄受苦異熟果，斷他命故來生人中受命短促為等流果，壞他威故感諸外物鮮少光澤為增上果。餘惡業道如理應思。由此應準知善業道三果，謂離殺等若習若修若多所作，由此力故，生於天中受異熟果。從彼歿已來生此間，人同分中受等流果，謂離殺者得壽命長。餘上相違如理應說。又契經說：八邪支中分色業為三，謂邪語業命。離邪語業邪命是何？雖離彼無而別說者，頌曰：

The treatise says: First let us distinguish that each of the ten evil courses of action brings three fruits. What are the three? Maturation, outflow and dominance, differently. That is, for the ten kinds, by practicing, cultivating and doing them often, through this power one is born in hell, which is the fruit of maturation. After emerging from it and being reborn here, among humans of the same kind one receives the fruit of outflow: one who kills has a short life, one who steals is poor in resources, one who commits sexual misconduct has an unchaste wife, one who lies is often slandered, one who speaks divisively has friends and relatives estranged, one who speaks harshly always hears harsh sounds, one who speaks idly has words without dignity. Greed leads to greater greed, ill will to increased ill will, wrong view to increased delusion, since delusion of that class increases. These are called the differences of the fruit of outflow of the courses of action. A short life among humans is also the fruit of good karma, so how can it be said to be the outflow of killing? It is not said that human life is the fruit of the karma of killing, but that people's life is short because of killing; one should know that the karma of killing acts as an obstructing cause for the human life faculty so that it does not remain long. As for the dominant fruits obtained by these ten, the external things such as supplies of life are, because of killing, less lustrous and fresh; because of stealing, often struck by frost and hail; because of sexual misconduct, full of dust; because of false speech, full of foul smells; because of divisive speech, dwellings are steep and winding; because of harsh speech, fields are full of thorns, rocky, salty and unfit for crops; because of idle speech, seasons change irregularly; because of greed, fruits are few; because of ill will, fruits are bitter; because of wrong view, fruits are few or none. These are called the differences of the dominant fruit of the courses of action. Does a single act of killing bring the fruit of maturation in hell and then also cause a short life span among humans, or are there others? Other masters say: The same act of killing first brings that maturation and later brings this outflow. Others say further: The causes of the two fruits are different, the first being the application and the later the root act. Although it is spoken of generally as one act of killing, in reality it includes the root act and its retinue. The word "outflow" here does not go beyond maturation and dominant fruit, and is called outflow provisionally on account of slight similarity. Why does each of these ten bring three fruits? Take first the karma of killing: in killing another it makes the other suffer, cuts off life and destroys majesty. That is, in killing, one makes another suffer, and so one falls into hell and receives the fruit of maturation of suffering; one cuts off another's life, and so being reborn among humans one receives a short life as the fruit of outflow; one destroys another's majesty, and so external things are less lustrous as the dominant fruit. The other evil courses of action should be considered accordingly. By this one should infer by analogy the three fruits of the wholesome courses of action: for abstention from killing and so on, by practicing, cultivating and doing them often, by this power one is born among the gods and receives the fruit of maturation. After dying there and being reborn here, among humans of the same kind one receives the fruit of outflow, namely one who abstains from killing obtains long life. The rest should be stated as the opposite of the above. Also the sutra says: Of the eight wrong limbs, form karma is divided into three, namely wrong speech, wrong action and wrong livelihood. Apart from wrong speech and wrong action, what is wrong livelihood? Although it is not apart from those, it is stated separately; the verse says:

貪生身語業，邪命難除故，

Greed gives rise to bodily and verbal karma, wrong livelihood is difficult to remove,

執命資貪生，違經故非理。

To hold that it is greed for livelihood supplies is contrary to the sutra and unreasonable.

論曰：瞋痴所生語身二業，如次名為邪語邪業。從貪所生身語二業，以難除故別立邪命。謂貪能奪諸有情心，彼所起業難可禁護。為於正命令殷重修，故佛離前別說為一。如有頌曰：

The treatise says: The verbal and bodily karma arising from ill will and delusion are called wrong speech and wrong action in order. The bodily and verbal karma arising from greed is separately established as wrong livelihood because it is difficult to remove. That is, greed can seize the minds of sentient beings, and the actions that arise from it are difficult to restrain. In order to make them cultivate right livelihood earnestly, the Buddha therefore separated it from the earlier ones and spoke of it as one. As a verse says:

俗邪見難除，由恆執異見，

For the layperson wrong view is difficult to remove, because they constantly hold different views,

道邪命難護，由資具屬他。

For the renunciant wrong livelihood is difficult to guard against, because their supplies depend on others.

有餘師執：緣命資具貪欲所生身語二業方名邪命，非餘貪生。所以者何？為自戲樂作歌舞等，非資命故。此違經故，理定不然。《戒蘊經》中觀象鬪等，世尊亦立在邪命中，邪受外境虛延命故。正語業命翻此應知。如前所言果有五種，此中何業有幾果耶？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) Other masters hold that only the bodily and verbal karma arising from greed for the supplies of life is called wrong livelihood, not greed arising otherwise. Why? Because singing and dancing for one's own amusement is not for supplying life. This contradicts the sutra, and reasonably it is not so. In the Sutra of the Aggregate of Precepts, watching elephant fights and the like are also established by the World-Honored One as wrong livelihood, because wrongly taking external objects spreads out life in vain. Right speech, action and livelihood should be understood as the opposite of these. As said before there are five kinds of fruits; among these, which karma has how many fruits? The verse says:

斷道有漏業，具足有五果，

The path of severing, karma with outflows, has fully five fruits,

無漏業有四，謂唯除異熟；

Undefiled karma has four, namely excluding only maturation;

餘有漏善惡，亦四除離繫，

The other wholesome and unwholesome karma with outflows also has four, excluding disjunction,

餘無漏無記，三除前所除。

The other undefiled and neutral karma has three, excluding what was previously excluded.

論曰：道能證斷及能斷惑，得斷道名，即無間道。此道有二種，謂有漏、無漏。有漏道業具有五果。異熟果者，謂自地中斷道所招可愛異熟。等流果者，謂自地中後等若增諸相似法。離繫果者，謂此道力斷惑所證擇滅無為。士用果者，謂道所牽俱有解脫所修及斷。增上果者，謂離自性餘有為法。唯除前生。即斷道中無漏道業唯有四果，謂除異熟。餘有漏善及不善業亦有四果，謂除離繫。異前斷道，故說為餘。次後餘言例此應釋。謂餘無漏及無記業，唯有三果。除前所除，謂除前所除異熟及離繫。已總分別諸業有果，次辯異門業有果相，於中先辯善等三業。頌曰：

The treatise says: The path that can realize severing and can sever afflictions is called the path of severing, namely the uninterrupted path. This path is of two kinds, with outflows and without outflows. Karma of the path with outflows has all five fruits. The fruit of maturation is the lovable maturation brought about by the path of severing in its own level. The fruit of outflow is the later similar dharmas of equal or increasing kind in its own level. The fruit of disjunction is the unconditioned cessation through discrimination realized by severing afflictions by the power of this path. The fruit of human effort is what is drawn by the path: the co-existent liberation, what is cultivated, and what is severed. The dominant fruit is the other conditioned dharmas apart from its own nature, except those that arose earlier. Undefiled karma within the path of severing has only four fruits, excluding maturation. The other wholesome and unwholesome karma with outflows also has four fruits, excluding disjunction. The word "other" is different from the earlier path of severing; the following "other" should be explained in the same way. That is, the other undefiled and neutral karma have only three fruits, excluding what was excluded before, namely maturation and disjunction. Having generally distinguished karma and its fruits, we next discuss the aspects of karma and fruit by different approaches, first taking up the three karmas of wholesome and so on. The verse says:

善等於善等，初有四二三，

Wholesome and so on for the wholesome and so on, the first has four, two, three,

中有二三四，後二三三果。

The middle has two, three, four, the last two, three, three fruits.

論曰：最後所說皆如次言，顯隨所應遍前門義。且善、不善、無記三業一一為因，如其次第對善、不善、無記三法辯有果數。後例應知。謂初善業以善法為四果，除異熟。以不善為二果，謂士用及增上。以無記為三果，除等流及離繫。中不善業以善法為二果，謂士用及增上。以不善為三果，除異熟及離繫。以無記為四果，除離繫。等流雲何？謂遍行不善及見苦所斷餘不善業，以有身見、邊執見品諸無記法為等流故。後無記業以善法為二果，謂士用及增上。以不善為三果，除異熟及離繫。等流雲何？謂有身見、邊執見品諸無記業，以諸不善為等流故。以無記為三果，除異熟及離繫。已辯三性，當辯三世。頌曰：

The treatise says: The last-mentioned items all follow "in order," showing that the meaning of the earlier approach applies according to the case. Take each of wholesome, unwholesome and neutral karma as a cause, and in order determine the number of fruits for the three kinds of dharmas, and one should know the later ones by analogy. The first, wholesome karma, has four fruits among wholesome dharmas, excluding maturation; two fruits among unwholesome dharmas, namely human effort and dominance; and three among neutral dharmas, excluding outflow and disjunction. The middle, unwholesome karma, has two fruits among wholesome dharmas, namely human effort and dominance; three fruits among unwholesome dharmas, excluding maturation and disjunction; and four fruits among neutral dharmas, excluding disjunction. What of outflow? It is that pervasive unwholesome karma and the other unwholesome karma severed by seeing suffering have as fruit of outflow the neutral dharmas belonging to the view of a real self and the extreme views. The last, neutral karma, has two fruits among wholesome dharmas, namely human effort and dominance; three fruits among unwholesome dharmas, excluding maturation and disjunction. What of outflow? Neutral karma belonging to the view of a real self and the extreme views has the unwholesome dharmas as its fruit of outflow. It has three fruits among neutral dharmas, excluding maturation and disjunction. Having discussed the three natures, we now discuss the three times. The verse says:

過於三各四，現於未亦爾，

The past has four for each of the three, the present is likewise for the future,

現於現二果，未於未果三。

The present for the present has two fruits, the future for the future has three fruits.

論曰：過去現在未來三業一一為因，如其所應以過去等為果別者，謂過去業以三世法各為四果，唯除離繫。現在業以未來為四果，如前說；以現在為二果，謂士用及增上。未來業以未來為三果，除等流及離繫。不說後業有前果者，前法定非後業果故。已辯三世。當辯諸地。頌曰：

The treatise says: Taking each of past, present and future karma as a cause, the difference in fruit, past and so on, is as follows: Past karma has four fruits in each of the dharmas of the three times, excluding only disjunction. Present karma has four fruits in the future, as before; has two fruits in the present, namely human effort and dominance. Future karma has three fruits in the future, excluding outflow and disjunction. It is not said that later karma has an earlier fruit, since earlier dharmas are definitely not the fruit of later karma. The three times have been discussed. The levels are now discussed. The verse says:

同地有四果，異地二或三。

The same level has four fruits, a different level has two or three.

論曰：於諸地中隨何地業，以同地法為四果，除離繫。若是有漏，以異地法為二果，謂士用及增上。若是無漏，以異地法為三果，除異熟及離繫。不墮界故，不遮等流。已辯諸地，當辯學等。頌曰：

The treatise says: Among the levels, karma of any level has four fruits in dharmas of the same level, excluding disjunction. If it has outflows, it has two fruits in dharmas of a different level, namely human effort and dominance. If it is undefiled, it has three fruits in dharmas of a different level, excluding maturation and disjunction. Because it does not belong to a realm, the fruit of outflow is not ruled out. The levels have been discussed. The learner and so on are now discussed. The verse says:

學於三各三，無學一三二，

The learner has three for each of the three, the one beyond learning has one, three, two,

非學非無學，有二二五果。

The neither-learner-nor-beyond-learning has two, two, five fruits.

論曰：學、無學、非學非無學三業一一為因，如其次第各以三法為果別者，謂學業以學法為三果，除異熟及離繫；以無學法為三亦爾；以非二為三果，除異熟及等流。無學業以學法為一果，謂增上；以無學為三果，除異熟及離繫；以非二為二果，謂士用及增上。非二業以學法為二果，謂士用及增上；以無學法為二亦爾，以非二為五果。已辯學等，當辯見所斷等。頌曰：

The treatise says: Taking each of the learner, the one beyond learning, and the neither as a cause, the fruits among the three kinds of dharmas in order are as follows. Learner karma has three fruits among learner dharmas, excluding maturation and disjunction; three also among dharmas beyond learning; and three among the neither, excluding maturation and outflow. Karma of one beyond learning has one fruit among learner dharmas, namely dominance; three fruits among those beyond learning, excluding maturation and disjunction; and two fruits among the neither, namely human effort and dominance. Karma of the neither has two fruits among learner dharmas, namely human effort and dominance; likewise two among those beyond learning; and five among the neither. The learner and so on have been discussed; what is severed by seeing and so on is now discussed. The verse says:

見所斷業等，一一各於三，

Karma severed by seeing and so on, each for each of the three,

初有三四一，中二四三果，

The first has three, four, one, the middle two, four, three fruits,

後有一二四，皆如次應知。

The last has one, two, four, all to be known in order.

論曰：見所斷、修所斷、非所斷三業一一為因，如其次第各以三法為果別者，初見所斷業以見所斷法為三果，除異熟及離繫；以修所斷法為四果，除離繫；以非所斷法為一果，謂增上果。修所斷業以見所斷法為二果，謂士用及增上；以修所斷法為四果，除離繫；以非所斷法為三果，除異熟及等流。後非所斷業以見所斷法為一果，謂增上；以修所斷法為二果，謂士用及增上；以非所斷法為四果，除異熟。皆如次者，隨其所應遍上諸門，略法應爾。因辯諸業應復問言：如本論中所說三業，謂應作業、不應作業及非應作非不應作業，其相云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Taking each of karma severed by seeing, severed by cultivation, and not to be severed as a cause, the fruits among the three kinds of dharmas in order are as follows. First, karma severed by seeing has three fruits among dharmas severed by seeing, excluding maturation and disjunction; four fruits among dharmas severed by cultivation, excluding disjunction; and one fruit among dharmas not to be severed, namely the dominant fruit. Karma severed by cultivation has two fruits among dharmas severed by seeing, namely human effort and dominance; four fruits among dharmas severed by cultivation, excluding disjunction; and three fruits among dharmas not to be severed, excluding maturation and outflow. Last, karma not to be severed has one fruit among dharmas severed by seeing, namely dominance; two fruits among dharmas severed by cultivation, namely human effort and dominance; and four fruits among dharmas not to be severed, excluding maturation. "All in order" means that according to the case it applies to all the categories above, in the abbreviated manner. Having discussed karma we should further ask: As for the three karmas spoken of in the original treatise, namely karma that ought to be done, karma that ought not to be done, and neither, what are their characteristics? The verse says:

染業不應作，有說亦壞軌，

Defiled karma ought not to be done, some also say what violates the rules,

應作業翻此，俱相違第三。

Karma that ought to be done is the opposite, the third is contrary to both.

論曰：有說染業名不應作，以從非理作意所生。有餘師言：諸壞軌則身語意業亦不應作，謂諸所有應如是行、應如是住、應如是說、應如是著衣、應如是食等，若不如是名不應作，由彼不合世俗禮儀；與此相翻名應作業。有說善業名為應作，以從如理作意所生。有餘師言：諸合軌則身語意業亦名應作，俱違前二名為第三，隨其所應二說差別。為由一業但引一生、為引多生？又為一生但一業引、為多業引？頌曰：

The treatise says: Some say that defiled karma is called what ought not to be done, since it arises from unreasonable attention. Other masters say: The bodily, verbal and mental karma that violates the rules is also what ought not to be done; that is, whatever ought to be walked thus, stood thus, said thus, clothed thus, eaten thus, and so on, if not so is called what ought not to be done, since it does not accord with worldly etiquette; the opposite of this is called karma that ought to be done. Some say wholesome karma is called what ought to be done, since it arises from reasonable attention. Other masters say: The bodily, verbal and mental karma that accords with the rules is also called what ought to be done; what is contrary to both of the former is called the third, with the two views differing according to the case. Does one karma draw only one life, or many lives? And does one life get drawn by only one karma, or by many? The verse says:

一業引一生，多業能圓滿。

One karma draws one life, many karmas can fulfill it.

論曰：依我所宗應作是說：但由一業唯引一生，此一生言顯一同分，以得同分方說名生。若爾，何緣尊者無滅自言：我憶昔於一時於殊勝福田一施食異熟，便得七返生三十三天，七生人中為轉輪聖帝，最後生在大釋迦家豐足珍財多受快樂。彼由一業感一生中大貴多財及宿生智，乘斯更造感餘生福，如是展轉至最後身生富貴家得究竟果，顯由初力故作是言。譬如有人持金錢一，展轉貿易得千金錢。唱如是言：我本由有一金錢故獲大富樂。復有說者：彼於昔時一施食為依，起多勝思願，有感天上、有感人中，剎那不同熟有先後，故非一業能引多生，亦無一生多業所引。勿眾同分分分差別。雖但一業引一同分，而彼圓滿許由多業。譬如畫師先以一色圖其形狀後填眾彩。是故雖有同稟人身，而於其中有具支體諸根形量色力莊嚴，或有於前多缺減者，非唯業力能引滿生。一切不善善有漏法有異熟故皆容引滿，以業勝故但標業名。然於其中業俱有者能引能滿，隨業勝故。若不與業為俱有者，能滿非引，勢力劣故。如是二類其體是何？頌曰：

The treatise says: According to our school one should say: only one karma draws only one life. By "one life" is meant one commonality of beings, since only when the commonality is obtained is it called a life. If so, why did the Venerable Aniruddha say of himself: I remember that long ago, on one occasion, I gave food to an excellent field of merit, and as the maturation I was reborn seven times in the Heaven of the Thirty-three, seven times among humans as a Wheel-Turning Sage King, and last I was born into the great Sakya clan, abundant in treasure and enjoying much pleasure. By one karma he received in one life great nobility, great wealth and knowledge of past lives, and relying on this he again made karma that brought merit in other lives; thus in turn, in the last body he was born into a wealthy family and obtained the ultimate fruit; this was said to show that it is due to the power of the first. As when a person holds one gold coin and, trading in turn, obtains a thousand gold coins, and says: Because I originally had one gold coin I obtained great wealth and pleasure. There are also those who say: Based on that one act of giving food long ago, he gave rise to many superior thoughts and vows, some bringing about rebirth in heaven and some among humans, with differences in the moment of ripening, earlier and later; therefore it is not that one karma draws many lives, and there is also no one life drawn by many karmas. Let there be no division of the commonality of beings into parts. Although only one karma draws one commonality, its fulfillment is accepted as by many karmas, as a painter first draws the form in one color and afterward fills in various colors. For this reason, although all receive a human body, among them some have complete limbs, faculties, form, stature, strength and adornment, while others are much deficient compared to them; thus it is not only the power of karma that draws and fulfills a life. All unwholesome and wholesome dharmas with outflows have maturation and so can all draw and fulfill, but because karma is superior only karma is named. Among them, what is co-existent with karma can draw and fulfill, according to the superiority of karma; what is not co-existent with karma can fulfill but not draw, since its power is weaker. What is the substance of these two kinds? The verse says:

二無心定得，不能引餘通。

The two attainments without mind and attainment cannot draw, the others cover both.

論曰：二無心定雖有異熟，而無勢力引眾同分，以與諸業非俱有故。得亦無力引眾同分，以與諸業非一果故。所餘一切皆通引滿。薄伽梵說：重障有三，謂業障、煩惱障、異熟障。如是三障其體是何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Although the two attainments without mind have maturation, they lack the power to draw the commonality of beings, because they are not co-existent with karma. Attainment also has no power to draw the commonality of beings, because it does not share one fruit with karma. All the others can both draw and fulfill. The Bhagavan said: There are three heavy obstructions, namely the obstruction of karma, the obstruction of afflictions, and the obstruction of maturation. What is the substance of these three obstructions? The verse says:

三障無間業，及數行煩惱，

The three obstructions are the uninterrupted karma, and the afflictions that often occur,

並一切惡趣，北洲無想天。

And all the evil destinies, the northern continent and the realm of non-perception.

論曰：言無間業者，謂五無間業。其五者何？一者害母、二者害父、三者害阿羅漢、四者破和合僧、五者惡心出佛身血。如是五種名為業障。煩惱有二：一者數行，謂恆起煩惱。二者猛利，謂上品煩惱。應知此中唯數行者名煩惱障。如扇搋等，煩惱數行難可伏除，故說為障。上品煩惱雖復猛利，非恆起故易可伏除。於下品中數行煩惱雖非猛利而難伏除，由彼恆行難得便故。謂從下品為緣生中，中品為緣復生上品，令伏除道無便得生。故煩惱中隨品上下，但數行者名煩惱障。全三惡趣、人趣、北洲及無想天名異熟障。此障何法？謂障聖道及障聖道加行善根。又業障中理亦應說餘決定業，謂餘一切定感惡趣卵生濕生及女人身第八有等。然若有業，由五因緣易見易知，此中偏說，謂處、趣、生、果及補特伽羅。於諸業中唯五無間，具此五種易見易知，餘業不然故此不說。餘障廢立如應當知。此三障中煩惱與業二障皆重，以有此者第二生內亦不可治。毘婆沙師作如是釋：由前能引後，故後輕於前。此無間名為目何義？約異熟果決定更無餘業餘生能為間隔，故此唯目無間隔義。或造此業補特伽羅，從此命終定墮地獄中無間隔，故名無間。彼有無間，得無間名。與無間法合故名無間，如與沙門合故名沙門。三障應知何趣中有？頌曰：

The treatise says: "Uninterrupted karma" means the five uninterrupted acts. What are the five? First, killing the mother; second, killing the father; third, killing an arhat; fourth, breaking the harmonious Sangha; fifth, with an evil mind causing the Buddha's body to bleed. These five kinds are called the obstruction of karma. Afflictions are of two kinds: first, those that often occur, namely constantly arising afflictions; second, the fierce, namely afflictions of the highest grade. One should know that among these only those that often occur are called the obstruction of afflictions. As with sandhas and others, afflictions that often occur are difficult to subdue and remove, and so are called obstructions. Although the afflictions of the highest grade are fierce, they do not constantly arise and so are easy to subdue and remove. Among the lower grade, although afflictions that often occur are not fierce, they are difficult to subdue and remove, since because they constantly operate it is hard to get an opening. That is, arising from the lower grade as condition, the middle grade as condition again gives rise to the higher, so that the path of subduing and removing has no opportunity to arise. Therefore among afflictions, whatever the grade, only those that often occur are called the obstruction of afflictions. The three evil destinies entire, the human realm, the northern continent and the realm of non-perception are called the obstruction of maturation. What does this obstruct? It obstructs the noble path and the good roots of application of the noble path. Also among the obstructions of karma, reasonably one should also speak of other fixed karma, namely all other karma that definitely brings about the evil destinies, birth from eggs and moisture, a woman's body, the eighth existence, and so on. But if there is karma that is easily seen and known by five causes and conditions, namely place, destiny, birth, fruit and person, among karmas only the five uninterrupted acts have these five kinds and are easily seen and known; other karma is not so, and therefore it is not spoken of here. The establishment and abolition of the other obstructions should be known accordingly. Among these three obstructions, those of afflictions and karma are both heavy, since one who has them cannot be cured even within the second life. The Vibhasa masters explain thus: Because the earlier can draw the later, the later is lighter than the earlier. What meaning does the name "uninterrupted" refer to? In terms of the fruit of maturation, it is definite that no other karma or other life can interrupt it, and so this refers only to the meaning of no interruption. Or the person who has done this karma, when this life ends, definitely falls into hell without interruption, and so it is called uninterrupted. Those who have the uninterrupted receive the name uninterrupted. It is called uninterrupted because it is joined with the uninterrupted, as it is called a shramana because it is joined with shramanas. In what destinies should these three obstructions be known to exist? The verse says:

三洲有無間，非餘扇搋等，

The three continents have the uninterrupted, not sandhas and the others,

少恩少羞恥，餘障通五趣。

They have little kindness and little shame, the other obstructions extend through the five destinies.

論曰：且無間業唯人三洲，非北俱盧餘趣餘界。於三洲內，唯女及男造無間業，非扇搋等。所以者何？即前所說彼無斷善不律儀因，即是此中無逆所以。又彼父母及彼己身，如次少恩少羞恥故。謂彼父母於彼少恩，為彼缺身增上緣故、又由於彼少愛念故。彼於父母慚愧心微，以無現前增上慚愧可言壞故觸無間罪。由此已釋，鬼及傍生雖害母等而非無間。然大德說：若覺分明亦成無間，如聰慧馬。若有人害非人父母不成逆罪，心境劣故。已辯業障唯人三洲，餘障應知五趣皆有。然於人趣唯北俱盧，在天趣中唯無想處。

The treatise says: First, uninterrupted karma exists only among humans of the three continents, not in Uttarakuru, other destinies or other realms. Within the three continents only women and men commit uninterrupted karma, not sandhas and the like. Why? Because the earlier-mentioned reason that they have no cause of severing the good and non-restraint is the same as their having no heinous acts here. Also, their parents and they themselves, in order, have little kindness and little shame. That is, their parents have little kindness toward them, because of the dominant condition of their defective bodies and because they have little affection for them. They have faint shame and conscience toward their parents, because there is no present dominant shame that could be said to be destroyed by touching the uninterrupted offence. By this it is explained that although ghosts and animals kill their mothers and so on, it is not uninterrupted. But the Elder said: If their awareness is clear, it is also uninterrupted, as with an intelligent horse. If a person kills the parents of a non-human, it does not constitute a heinous crime, since the mind and object are inferior. It has been explained that the obstruction of karma exists only among humans of the three continents; the other obstructions should be known to exist in all five destinies. But among the human destinies only Uttarakuru, and among the heavens only the realm of non-perception.

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by the Tripitaka Master Xuanzang by imperial order

分別業品第四之六

Chapter 4, Analysis of Karma, Part 6

於前所辯三重障中，說五無間為業障體。五無間業其體是何？頌曰：

Among the three heavy obstructions explained earlier, the five uninterrupted acts were said to be the substance of the obstruction of karma. What is the substance of the five uninterrupted acts? The verse says:

此五無間中，四身一語業，

Among these five uninterrupted acts, four are bodily and one verbal karma,

三殺一誑語，一殺生加行。

Three are killing, one is false speech, and one is the preparatory act of killing.

論曰：五無間中四是身業、一是語業、三是殺生、一虛誑語根本業道、一是殺生業道加行，以如來身不可害故。破僧無間是虛誑語。既是虛誑語，何緣名破僧？因受果名，或能破故。若爾，僧破其體是何？能所破人誰所成就？頌曰：

The treatise says: Among the five uninterrupted acts, four are bodily karma and one is verbal; three are killing, one is the root course of action of false speech, and one is the preparatory stage of the course of action of killing, because the body of the Tathagata cannot be harmed. Breaking the Sangha is the uninterrupted act of false speech. Since it is false speech, why is it called breaking the Sangha? Because the effect is named after the cause, or because it can break. If so, what is the substance of the Sangha's breaking? Who accomplishes the one who breaks and the one broken? The verse says:

僧破不和合，心不相應行，

The breaking of the Sangha is disharmony, a formation not associated with mind,

無覆無記性，所破僧所成。

Of unobstructed neutral nature, accomplished by the Sangha that is broken.

論曰：僧破體是不和合性，無覆無記心不相應行蘊所攝，豈成無間？如是僧破因誑語生，故說破僧是無間果。非能破者成此僧破，但是所破僧眾所成。此能破人何所成就？破僧異熟何處幾時？頌曰：

The treatise says: The substance of the breaking of the Sangha is the nature of disharmony, included in the aggregate of non-associated formations, of unobstructed neutral nature; how then does it constitute the uninterrupted? This breaking of the Sangha arises from false speech, and so it is said that breaking the Sangha is the effect of the uninterrupted act. It is not that the one who breaks accomplishes this breaking of the Sangha; it is accomplished only by the Sangha that is broken. What does this one who breaks accomplish? Where and for how long does the maturation of breaking the Sangha occur? The verse says:

能破者唯成，此虛誑語罪，

The one who breaks accomplishes only the offense of this false speech,

無間一劫熟，隨罪增苦增。

Ripening in uninterrupted hell for one kalpa, with suffering increasing as the offense increases.

論曰：能破僧人成破僧罪，此破僧罪誑語為性，即僧破俱生語表無表業，此必無間大地獄中經一中劫受極重苦。餘逆不必生於無間，若作多逆罪皆於次生熟，如何多逆同感一生？隨彼罪增苦還增劇，謂由多逆感地獄中大柔軟身多猛苦具，受二三四五倍重苦。誰於何處能破於誰？破在何時？經幾時破？頌曰：

The treatise says: The person who can break the Sangha accomplishes the offense of breaking the Sangha, which has false speech as its nature, namely the verbal informing and non-informing karma arisen together with the breaking of the Sangha. This surely brings the experience of extreme suffering for one intermediate kalpa in the great Avici hell. The other heinous acts do not necessarily lead to birth in Avici; if one commits many heinous acts, all ripen in the next life. How can many heinous acts bring about one life together? According to the increase of the offense the suffering again increases fiercely, meaning that through many heinous acts one receives in hell a very soft body and many fierce instruments of torture, and suffers two, three, four or five times heavier suffering. Who, in what place, can break whom? At what time is it broken? How long does the breaking take? The verse says:

苾芻見淨行，破異處愚夫，

A bhikshu of view-practice, in pure conduct, breaks in a different place from ordinary people,

忍異師道時，名破不經宿。

Accepting a different teacher and path; it is called breaking when not passing the night.

論曰：能破僧者要大苾芻，必非在家、苾芻尼等。唯見行者，非愛行人。住淨行人，非犯戒者，以犯戒者言無威故。要異處破，非對大師，以諸如來不可輕逼，言詞威肅對必無能。唯破異生非破聖者，以諸聖者證法性故。有說：得忍亦不可破。為含二義說愚夫言，要所破僧忍師異佛，忍異佛說有餘聖道。應說僧破在如是時，此夜必和不經宿住。如是名曰破法輪僧，能障聖道輪、壞僧和合故。何洲人幾破法輪僧？破羯磨僧何洲人幾？頌曰：

The treatise says: The one who can break the Sangha must be a great bhikshu, certainly not a layman or a bhikshuni and the like. He must be of view-practice, not of craving-practice. The one who dwells in pure conduct is not a precept-breaker, because a precept-breaker's words have no authority. He must break in a different place, not in the presence of the great teacher, because the Tathagatas cannot be lightly pressured and their words are awesome, so that no one can face them. He breaks only ordinary people and does not break noble ones, because the noble ones have realized the nature of the arising of faith. Some say: Those who have attained acceptance also cannot be broken. In saying "ordinary people" two meanings are contained: the Sangha to be broken must accept a teacher different from the Buddha, and accepting a different Buddha means accepting another noble path. It should be said that the breaking of the Sangha occurs at such a time that it certainly is concord that does not pass the night. This is called breaking the Sangha of the wheel of the Dharma, because it blocks the wheel of the noble path and destroys the harmony of the Sangha. In what continent, and with how many people, can the Sangha of the wheel of the Dharma be broken? In which continent and with how many people can a Sangha of formal acts be broken? The verse says:

贍部洲九等，方破法輪僧；

In Jambudvipa, with nine and more, one can break the Sangha of the wheel of the Dharma;

唯破羯磨僧，通三洲八等。

Breaking only the Sangha of formal acts covers three continents, with eight and more.

論曰：唯贍部洲，人少至九或復過此，能破法輪。非於餘洲，以無佛故。有世尊處方有異師。要八苾芻分為二眾，以為所破，能破第九，故眾極少猶須九人。等言為明過此無限。唯破羯磨通在三洲，極少八人，多亦無限。通三洲者，有聖教故。要一界中僧分二部別作羯磨，故須八人，過此無遮故亦言等。於何時分無破法輪？頌曰：

The treatise says: Only in Jambudvipa, with at least nine people or more, can the wheel of the Dharma be broken, and not in other continents, because there is no Buddha. Different teachers exist only where the World-Honored One exists. Eight bhikshus must be divided into two groups as those to be broken, with the ninth being the one who breaks, and so even the smallest assembly needs nine. The word "and more" makes clear that beyond this there is no limit. Breaking only the formal acts covers the three continents, with a minimum of eight people and no limit on more. It covers the three continents because there is a noble teaching. It requires that within one boundary the Sangha be divided into two parties performing separate formal acts, and so eight people are needed; more than this is not prohibited and so also "and more" is said. In what periods is there no breaking of the wheel of the Dharma? The verse says:

初後皰雙前，佛滅未結界，

At the beginning, at the end, before the sores, before the pair, after the Buddha's extinction, and before the boundary is fixed,

於如是六位，無破法輪僧。

In these six situations there is no breaking of the Sangha of the wheel of the Dharma.

論曰：初謂世尊轉法輪未久，後謂善逝將般涅槃時，此二時中僧一味故。於正戒見皰未起時，要二皰生方可破故。未立止觀第一雙時，法爾由彼速還合故。佛滅後時，無真大師為敵對故。未結界時，無一界中分二部故。於此六位無破法輪。非破法輪諸佛皆有，必依宿業有此事故。且止傍論，應辯逆緣。頌曰：

The treatise says: "The beginning" means not long after the World-Honored One turned the wheel of the Dharma; "the end" means when the Sugata is about to enter nirvana; in these two periods the Sangha is of one taste. Before the sores of right precepts and views have arisen, since the breaking is possible only when two sores have arisen. Before the first pair of calm and insight has been established, because by nature they quickly rejoin. After the Buddha's extinction, because there is no true great teacher as an opponent. Before the boundary is fixed, because there is not yet a division into two parties within one boundary. In these six situations there is no breaking of the wheel of the Dharma. It is not that all Buddhas have the breaking of the wheel of the Dharma, since it must depend on past karma that this occurs. Enough of the digression; the conditions for heinous acts should be discussed. The verse says:

棄壞恩德田，轉形亦成逆，

Abandoning and destroying the field of kindness and the field of virtue, even if one changes form it is still a heinous act,

母謂因彼血，誤等無或有，

The mother is said to be the one from whose blood, by mistake and so on, there is none or there is some,

打心出佛血，害後無學無。

Striking with intent, drawing the Buddha's blood, harming the later, there is none for one beyond learning.

論曰：何緣害母等成無間非餘？由棄恩田、壞德田故。謂害父母是棄恩田。如何有恩？身生本故。如何棄彼？謂捨彼恩。德田謂餘阿羅漢等，具諸勝德及能生故。壞德所依，故成逆罪。父母形轉殺成逆耶？逆罪亦成，依止一故。由如是義，故有問言：頗有令男離命根，非父阿羅漢，而為無間罪觸不？曰：有，謂母轉形。頗有令女離命根，非母阿羅漢，而為無間罪觸不？曰：有，謂父轉形。設有女人羯剌藍墮，餘女收取置產門中生子。殺，何成害母逆？因彼血者身生本故。諸有所作應諮後母，能飲能養能長成故。若於父母起殺加行，誤殺餘人無無間罪。於非父母起殺加行，誤殺父母亦不成逆。如子執杖擊父身蚊，母隱在床謂餘而殺。若一加行害母及餘，二無表生，表唯逆罪，以無間業勢力強故。尊者妙音說有二表，表是積集極微成故。若害阿羅漢無阿羅漢想，於彼依止起定殺心，無簡別故亦成逆罪。若有害父，父是阿羅漢，得一逆罪，以依止一故。若爾，喻說當云何通？佛告始欠持：汝已造二逆，所謂害父、殺阿羅漢。彼顯一逆由二緣成，或以二門訶責彼罪。若於佛所惡心出血，一切皆得無間罪耶？要以殺心方成逆罪，打心出血無間則無。若殺加行時，彼非阿羅漢，將死方得阿羅漢果，能殺彼者有逆罪耶？無，於無學身無殺加行故。若造無間加行不可轉，為有離染及得聖果耶？頌曰：

The treatise says: Why does killing one's mother and so on constitute the uninterrupted and not other acts? Because they abandon the field of kindness and destroy the field of virtue. Killing parents abandons the field of kindness. How are they kind? They are the root of the body's birth. How does one abandon them? By giving up their kindness. The field of virtue is arhats and the like, who have all superior virtues and can give birth to them. Destroying the basis of virtue constitutes a heinous offense. If the parents change form and are killed, does it constitute a heinous act? The heinous offense is also constituted, because the basis is one. By this meaning, a question is asked: Is there a case of making a man lose his life faculty, who is neither his father nor an arhat, yet touched by an uninterrupted offense? Answer: Yes, namely a mother who has changed form. Is there a case of making a woman lose her life faculty, who is neither his mother nor an arhat, yet touched by an uninterrupted offense? Answer: Yes, namely a father who has changed form. Suppose a woman's kalala falls and another woman takes it and places it in her womb and gives birth to a child. If killed, does it constitute killing the mother as a heinous act? Because she is the one from whose blood the body arose. For all that is to be done, one should consult the later mother, since she can drink, nurture and raise it. If one has the preparatory act of killing toward one's parents but by mistake kills someone else, there is no uninterrupted offense. If one has the preparatory act of killing toward someone not a parent but by mistake kills a parent, it also does not constitute a heinous act, as when a son holding a staff strikes a mosquito on his father's body, and the mother hidden under the bed is killed thinking it was someone else. If with one preparatory act one harms mother and another, two non-informing karmas arise, but the informing karma is only the heinous offense, because the force of uninterrupted karma is strong. The Venerable Subhuti says there are two informings, since informing is constituted by an accumulation of extremely fine particles. If one harms an arhat without the perception of an arhat, having a firm intent to kill with regard to that basis and no discrimination, it also constitutes a heinous act. If one harms one's father and the father is an arhat, one obtains one heinous act, since the basis is one. If so, how is the parable to be reconciled? The Buddha told Shitiqian (a person's name): You have already committed two heinous acts, namely killing your father and killing an arhat. This shows that one heinous act is constituted by two conditions, or that he was rebuked for that offense in two ways. If with an evil mind one draws blood from the Buddha, does one in every case obtain the uninterrupted offense? Only with a mind to kill is a heinous offense constituted; if blood is drawn by striking intent, there is no uninterrupted act. If at the time of the preparatory act of killing the person is not an arhat but is about to die and attains the fruit of arhat, does the one who kills him have a heinous offense? No, because there is no preparatory act of killing directed at the body of one beyond learning. If one has committed the preparatory act of an uninterrupted offense that cannot be reversed, can one in the meantime become free from desire or attain a noble fruit? The verse says:

造逆定加行，無離染得果。

One who has done a heinous act and is fixed in the preparatory act does not become free from desire or attain a fruit.

論曰：無間加行若必定成，中間決無離染得果。餘惡業道加行中間，若聖道生，業道不起，依止與彼定相違故。於諸惡行無間業中何罪最重？於諸妙行世善業中何最大果？頌曰：

The treatise says: If the preparatory act of an uninterrupted offense is definitely accomplished, in the interval there is certainly no freedom from desire or attainment of a fruit. For the preparatory stage of other evil courses of action, if the noble path arises in the interval the course of action does not arise, because the basis is definitely contrary to it. Among evil acts, among uninterrupted karma, which offense is heaviest? Among good acts, among worldly wholesome karma, what has the greatest fruit? The verse says:

破僧虛誑語，於罪中最大；

Breaking the Sangha by false speech is the greatest among offenses;

感第一有思，世善中大果。

The volition that brings about the peak of existence is the greatest fruit among worldly good.

論曰：雖了法非法，為欲破僧而起虛誑語顛倒顯示，此無間中為最大罪，由此傷毀佛法身故、障世生天解脫道故。謂僧已破乃至未合，一切世間入聖得果離染盡漏皆悉被遮，習定溫誦思等業息，大千世界法輪不轉，天人龍等身心擾亂，故招無間一劫異熟。由此破僧罪為最重，餘無間罪如其次第，第五三一後後漸輕。第二最輕，恩等少故。若爾，何故三罰業中，佛說意罰為最大罪，又說罪中邪見最大？據五無間說破僧重，約三罰業說意罪大，就五僻見說邪見重。或依大果害多有情斷諸善根，如次說重。感第一有異熟果思，於世善中為最大果，感八萬大劫極靜異熟故。約異熟果故說此言。據離繫果，則金剛喻定相應思能得大果，諸結永斷為此果故。為簡此故，說世善言。為唯無間罪定生地獄、諸無間同類亦定生彼？有餘師說：非無間生。同類者何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Although one understands dharma and non-dharma, if for the sake of breaking the Sangha one gives rise to false speech that shows things inverted, this is the greatest offense among the uninterrupted acts, because it wounds and ruins the Dharma body of the Buddha and obstructs the path of worldly rebirth in heaven and of liberation. That is, as long as the Sangha is broken and not yet reunited, all in the world are blocked from entering the noble path, attaining fruits, becoming free from desire and exhausting outflows; the practice of concentration, recitation, contemplation and similar karma ceases; the wheel of the Dharma does not turn in the great trichiliocosm; and the bodies and minds of gods, humans, nagas and others are disturbed; therefore it brings about the maturation of uninterrupted hell for one kalpa. For this reason the offense of breaking the Sangha is the heaviest, and the other uninterrupted offenses in order, the fifth, third and first, are progressively lighter, the second being lightest because its kindness and so on is less. If so, why among the three punishments did the Buddha say that mental punishment is the greatest offense, and also say that among offenses wrong view is greatest? According to the five uninterrupted acts breaking the Sangha is said to be heavy; in terms of the three punishments the mental offense is said to be great; and among the five wrong views, wrong view is heavy. Or, in terms of great fruit, harming many sentient beings and severing the good roots are said to be heavy in order. The volition that brings about the maturation of the peak of existence is the greatest fruit among worldly good, because it brings extremely tranquil maturation of eighty thousand great kalpas. This is said in terms of the fruit of maturation. In terms of the fruit of disjunction, the volition associated with the diamond-like concentration can obtain a great fruit, because the permanent severing of fetters is its fruit. To distinguish this, "worldly good" is mentioned. Does only the uninterrupted offense definitely lead to birth in hell, or do things of the same kind as the uninterrupted also definitely lead there? Other masters say: It is not birth in the uninterrupted. What are the things of the same kind? The verse says:

汙母無學尼，殺住定菩薩，

Defiling one's mother, a bhikshuni beyond learning, killing a bodhisattva fixed in his stage,

及有學聖者，奪僧和合緣，

And a noble learner, robbing the conditions for the Sangha's harmony,

破壞窣堵波，是無間同類。

Destroying a stupa, are the kinds similar to the uninterrupted.

論曰：如是五種隨其次第，是五無間同類業體。謂有於母阿羅漢尼行極汙染謂非梵行，或有殺害住定菩薩，或殺學聖者，或奪僧合緣，或破窣堵波，是五逆同類。有異熟業於三時中極能為障。言三時者，頌曰：

The treatise says: These five, in order, are the substances of the karmas of the same class as the five immediate-retribution crimes. They are: to engage in extremely defiling, non-celibate conduct with one's mother or with an arhat nun; or to kill a Bodhisattva who abides in the fixed state; or to kill a noble one who is still in training; or to seize the means of unity of the Sangha; or to destroy a stupa. These are the crimes of the same class as the five rebellious acts. There are karmas of maturation that, over three periods, are an extreme obstruction. As for the three periods, a verse says:

將得忍不還，無學業為障。

On the point of gaining acceptance, non-return, and the stage beyond learning, karma is an obstruction.

論曰：若從頂位將得忍時，感惡趣業皆極為障，以忍超彼異熟地故。如人將離本所居國，一切債主皆極為障。若有將得不還果時，欲界繫業皆極為障，唯除隨順現法受業。若有將得無學果時，色無色業皆極為障，亦除順現。二喻如前。如上所言住定菩薩，為從何位得住定名？彼復於何說名為定？頌曰：

The treatise says: When one is about to gain acceptance from the stage of the summit, the karmas that bring about evil destinies are all an extreme obstruction, because acceptance surpasses the ground of their maturation. It is like a man about to leave the country where he has lived, to whom all his creditors are an extreme obstruction. When one is about to gain the fruit of non-return, the karmas bound to the desire realm are all an extreme obstruction, excepting only those that are to be experienced in the present life. When one is about to gain the fruit beyond learning, the karmas of the form and formless realms are all an extreme obstruction, again excepting those experienced in the present life. The two analogies are as before. As for the Bodhisattva who abides in the fixed state, as mentioned above, from what stage does he gain the name "fixed"? And in what respect is he called fixed? A verse says:

從修妙相業，菩薩得定名，

From cultivating the karma of the excellent marks, a Bodhisattva gains the name "fixed";

生善趣貴家，具男念堅故。

he is born in good destinies and noble families, with male form, memory and firmness.

論曰：從修能感妙三十二大丈夫相異熟果業，菩薩方得立住定名，以從此時乃至成佛常生善趣及貴家等。生善趣者，謂生人天，趣妙可稱故名善趣。於善趣內常生貴家，謂婆羅門或剎帝利、鉅富長者大婆羅家。於貴家中根有具缺，然彼菩薩恆具勝根，恆受男身尚不為女，何況有受扇搋等身。生生常能憶念宿命，所作善事常無退屈。謂於利樂有情事中，眾苦逼身皆能堪忍。雖他種種惡行違逆，而彼菩薩心無厭倦。如世傳有無價䭾娑，當知此言目彼菩薩。由彼大士雖已成就一切殊勝圓滿功德，而由久習無緣大悲，任運恆時繫屬他故。普於一切有情類中，以無慢心皆攝同己。或常觀己如彼僕使，故於一切難求事中皆能堪忍，及於一切勞迫事中皆能荷負。修妙相業其相云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: From the time he cultivates the karma that brings about the maturation of the excellent thirty-two marks of a great man, the Bodhisattva is first called "fixed," because from then until he becomes a Buddha he is always born in good destinies and in noble families and so on. Born in good destinies means born among humans or gods; because the destiny is excellent and praiseworthy it is called a good destiny. Within good destinies he is always born into a noble family, that is, a Brahmin or a Kshatriya, or the household of a wealthy elder or a great Brahmin. Among noble families, the faculties may be complete or deficient, but that Bodhisattva always has superior faculties, and always takes a male body and is not even a woman, much less does he take the body of a eunuch or the like. Life after life he is always able to remember his former lives, and he never wavers in the good deeds he does. That is, in works that benefit and bring happiness to sentient beings, he can endure even when many sufferings press upon his body. Though others commit various evil acts against him, that Bodhisattva's mind is never wearied. As the world tells of a priceless servant, one should know that this phrase refers to that Bodhisattva. Although this great being has already accomplished all supreme and perfect merits, through long habituation to unconditioned great compassion he is naturally and constantly bound to others. Among all kinds of sentient beings, he draws all in as himself, without arrogance. Or he constantly regards himself as their servant, and so in all things hard to bear he can endure, and in all toilsome and pressing matters he can carry the load. What are the characteristics of cultivating the karma of the excellent marks? A verse says:

贍部男對佛，佛思思所成，

In Jambudvipa, as a man, facing a Buddha, thought about the Buddha, made of thought,

餘百劫方修，各百福嚴飾。

he cultivates it for the remaining hundred kalpas, each adorned with a hundred merits.

論曰：菩薩要在贍部洲中，方能造修引妙相業，此洲覺慧最明利故。唯是男子非女等身，爾時已超女等位故。唯現對佛，緣佛起思是思所成，非聞修類。唯餘百劫造修非多，諸佛因中法應如是。唯薄伽梵釋迦牟尼，精進熾然能超九劫，九十一劫妙相業成。是故如來告聚落主：我憶九十一劫以來，不見一家因施我食有少傷損，唯成大利。從此自性恆憶宿生，是故但言九十一劫。宿舊師說：菩薩出初無數劫來，離四過失、得二功德。如前所辯，一一妙相百福莊嚴，何等名為一一福量？有說：唯除近佛菩薩，所餘一切有情所修富樂果業名一福量。有說：世界將欲成時，一切有情感大千土業增上力為一福量。有說：此量唯佛乃知。今我大師，昔菩薩位於三無數劫供養幾佛耶？頌曰：

The treatise says: A Bodhisattva can create and cultivate the karma that draws the excellent marks only in Jambudvipa, because the wisdom and understanding of this continent are the sharpest and clearest. It is only men and not women and the like, because by then he has passed beyond the stage of a woman and the like. He does so only in the presence of a Buddha, and the thought directed at the Buddha is made of thought, not of the class of hearing or cultivation. He cultivates only for a hundred kalpas, not more; this is the rule in the causal stage of the Buddhas. Only the Bhagavan Shakyamuni, with blazing diligence, was able to surpass nine kalpas, and so the karma of the excellent marks was completed in ninety-one kalpas. For this reason the Tathagata told the village headman: I recall that in the ninety-one kalpas up to now, I have not seen a single family suffer even slight harm because of giving me food, but only great benefit. From then on, by nature, he always remembered his former lives, which is why only ninety-one kalpas are mentioned. The old masters say: The Bodhisattva, from the first incalculable kalpa onward, was free of four faults and gained two merits. As explained earlier, each excellent mark is adorned with a hundred merits; what is the measure of each merit? Some say: Excluding Bodhisattvas near to Buddhahood, the karma that brings about the fruit of wealth and happiness cultivated by all other sentient beings is the measure of one merit. Some say: When a world is about to form, the increasing power of the karma of all sentient beings in bringing about a great-thousand world is the measure of one merit. Some say: Only a Buddha knows this measure. Now how many Buddhas did our Great Teacher serve in his Bodhisattva stage during the three incalculable kalpas? A verse says:

於三無數劫，各供養七萬，

In the three incalculable kalpas, he made offerings to seventy thousand each,

又如次供養，五六七千佛。

and in order further to five, six, and seven thousand Buddhas.

論曰：初無數劫中供養七萬五千佛，次無數劫中供養七萬六千佛，後無數劫中供養七萬七千佛。三無數劫一一滿時，及初發心，各逢何佛？頌曰：

The treatise says: In the first incalculable kalpa he made offerings to seventy-five thousand Buddhas, in the second incalculable kalpa to seventy-six thousand Buddhas, and in the third incalculable kalpa to seventy-seven thousand Buddhas. When each of the three incalculable kalpas was completed, and at the time of his first arousing the mind, which Buddhas did he meet? A verse says:

三無數劫滿，逆次逢勝觀，

At the completion of the three incalculable kalpas, in reverse order he met Vipasyin,

然燈寶髻佛，初釋迦牟尼。

Dipamkara, Ratnasikhin, and at first, Shakyamuni.

論曰：言逆次者，自後向前。謂於第三無數劫滿所逢事佛名為勝觀，第二劫滿所逢事佛名曰然燈，第一劫滿所逢事佛名為寶髻，最初發心位逢釋迦牟尼。謂我世尊昔菩薩位最初逢一佛號釋迦牟尼，遂對其前發弘誓願：願我當作佛，一如今世尊。彼佛亦於末劫出世，滅後正法亦住千年。故今如來一一同彼。我釋迦菩薩於何位中何波羅蜜多修習圓滿？頌曰：

The treatise says: "In reverse order" means going from the last to the first. At the completion of the third incalculable kalpa, the Buddha he served and met was named Vipasyin; at the completion of the second kalpa, the Buddha he met was named Dipamkara; at the completion of the first kalpa, the Buddha he met was named Ratnasikhin; and at the time of first arousing the mind he met Shakyamuni. That is, our World-Honored One, in his Bodhisattva stage, first met a Buddha named Shakyamuni, and then before him made the great vow: May I become a Buddha, exactly like the present World-Honored One. That Buddha also appeared in the final kalpa, and after his extinction the true Dharma also lasted a thousand years; so the present Tathagata is in every respect the same as that Buddha. In which stage did our Bodhisattva Shakya perfect which paramita? A verse says:

但由悲普施，被析身無忿，

Only through compassion, universal giving, having his body cut apart without anger,

讚歎底沙佛，次無上菩提，

praising the Buddha Tishya, and then before supreme enlightenment,

六波羅蜜多，於如是四位，

the six paramitas, in these four stages,

一二又一二，如次修圓滿。

one, two, then one, two, in order are cultivated to perfection.

論曰：若時菩薩普於一切能施一切乃至眼髓，所行惠捨但由悲心，非自希求勝生差別，齊此佈施波羅蜜多修習圓滿。若時菩薩被析身支，雖未離欲貪而心無少忿，齊此戒忍波羅蜜多修習圓滿。若時菩薩勇猛精進因行，遇見底沙如來坐寶龕中入火界定威光赫奕特異於常，專誠瞻仰忘下一足，經七晝夜無怠，淨心以妙伽他讚彼佛曰：

The treatise says: When the Bodhisattva could give everything universally to all, even his eyes and marrow, and his giving was done purely out of compassion and not out of hoping for a particular superior rebirth, at this point the paramita of giving was cultivated to perfection. When the Bodhisattva had his body limbs cut apart and, though not yet free from desire and craving, had not the slightest anger in his mind, at this point the paramitas of morality and patience were cultivated to perfection. When the Bodhisattva, in the causal practice of vigorous diligence, saw the Tathagata Tishya seated in a jeweled niche, entering the concentration of the fire element, with a radiance that was brilliant and extraordinary, he gazed up in single-minded sincerity, forgetting to put down one foot, and for seven days and nights without slackening, with a pure mind he praised that Buddha with an excellent gatha, saying:

天地此界多聞室，逝宮天處十方無，

In heaven and earth, in this world, the house of great learning; in the palaces of gods and in the ten directions there is none like him;

丈夫牛王大沙門，尋地山林遍無等。

the bull-king among men, the great ascetic: searching the lands, mountains and forests, none is his equal.

如是讚已便超九劫，齊此精進波羅蜜多修習圓滿。若時菩薩處金剛座，將登無上正等菩提，次無上覺前住金剛喻定，齊此定慧波羅蜜多修習圓滿。能到自所往圓德彼岸，故此六名曰波羅蜜多。契經說：有三福業事，一施類福業事、二戒類福業事、三修類福業事。此云何立福業事名？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) Having praised him in this way, he surpassed nine kalpas, and at this point the paramita of diligence was cultivated to perfection. When the Bodhisattva sat on the diamond seat, about to ascend to supreme and perfect enlightenment, and before supreme awakening abided in the diamond-like concentration, at this point the paramitas of concentration and wisdom were cultivated to perfection. Because one can reach the far shore of the perfect virtues to which one is going, these six are called paramitas. A sutra says: There are three bases of meritorious action: the basis of meritorious action of giving, the basis of meritorious action of morality, and the basis of meritorious action of cultivation. How are these named bases of meritorious action? A verse says:

施戒修三類，各隨其所應，

Giving, morality and cultivation are three kinds, each according to what it includes,

受福業事名，差別如業道。

called meritorious action or basis; the distinctions are as with the paths of action.

論曰：三類皆福，或業或事，隨其所應如業道說。謂如分別十業道中，有業亦道有道非業，此中有福亦業亦事、有福業非事、有福事非業、有唯是福非業非事。且施類中身語二業具福業事三種義名，彼等起思唯名福業，思俱有法唯受福名，戒類既唯身語業性故皆具受福業事名。修類中慈唯名福事，業之事故。慈相應思，以慈為門而造作故，慈俱思戒唯名福業，餘俱有法唯受福名。或福業名顯作福義，謂福加行事顯所依，謂施戒修是福業之事，為成彼三起福加行故。有說：唯思是真福業。福業之事謂施戒修，以三為門福業轉故。何法名施？施招何果？頌曰：

The treatise says: All three kinds are meritorious, whether as action or as basis, according to what they include, as stated for the paths of action. That is, as in distinguishing the ten paths of action, there is what is both action and path, and what is path but not action; here there is what is merit, action and basis; what is meritorious action but not basis; what is meritorious basis but not action; and what is only merit and neither action nor basis. First, in the kind of giving, the two actions of body and speech possess all three meanings of name, merit, action and basis; the volitions that arise with them are called only meritorious action, and the dharmas that coexist with the volition are called only merit. For the kind of morality, since it is of the nature of bodily and verbal action only, it fully possesses the names merit, action and basis. In the kind of cultivation, loving-kindness is called only a meritorious basis, because it is the basis of action; the volition associated with loving-kindness, because it acts through loving-kindness as its gate, and the morality that coexists with loving-kindness, are called only meritorious action, while other coexisting dharmas are called only merit. Or the name "meritorious action" shows the meaning of making merit, and "basis" shows what the preparatory effort for merit relies on; giving, morality and cultivation are the bases of meritorious action because meritorious preparatory effort arises in order to accomplish those three. Some say that only volition is truly meritorious action, and the bases of meritorious action are giving, morality and cultivation, because meritorious action proceeds through those three as gates. What dharma is called giving? What fruit does giving bring? A verse says:

由此捨名施，謂為供為益，

That by which one gives up is called giving, done for offering or for benefit,

身語及能發，此招大富果。

body and speech and what gives rise to them; this brings the fruit of great wealth.

論曰：雖所捨物亦得施名，而於此中捨具名施，謂由此具捨事得成，故捨所由是真施體。或由怖畏希求貪等捨事亦成，非此意說，簡彼故說為供益言。謂為於他供養饒益而有所捨，此具名施。具名何謂？謂身語業及此能發。能發謂何？謂無貪俱能起此聚。如有頌曰：

The treatise says: Although the object that is given up is also called a gift, here the means of giving up is called giving, that is, that by which the act of giving is accomplished, and so what gives is the true substance of giving. Or giving can be done out of fear, hope, greed and so on, but that is not what is meant here; to exclude those, the words "for offering or benefit" are said. That is, giving up something for the sake of offering to others or benefiting them is the means called giving. What is the means called? It is bodily and verbal action and what gives rise to them. What gives rise to them? It is the mass of dharmas that arise together with non-greed. As a verse says:

若人以淨心，輟己而行施，

If a person with a pure mind gives by setting aside what is his own,

此剎那善蘊，總立以施名。

the aggregate of wholesomeness at that moment is collectively given the name of giving.

應知如是施類福業事，能招當現大財富為果。言施類福者，顯施為體義，如葉類器草類舍等。戒修類言准此應釋。為何所益而行施耶？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) One should know that such a basis of meritorious action of the kind of giving can bring about great wealth in the future and in the present as its fruit. The words "of the kind of giving" show that giving is its substance, like a leaf-kind vessel or a grass-kind sacrifice. The words "of the kind of morality" and "of cultivation" should be explained along the same lines. For whose benefit is giving done? A verse says:

為益自他俱，不為二行施。

For the benefit of oneself, of others, of both, or of neither, one gives.

論曰：此中一切未離欲貪及離欲貪諸異生類，持己所有奉施制多，此施名為唯為自益，非他由此有獲益故。若諸聖者已離欲貪，施諸有情除順現受，此施名曰唯為益他，以他由此獲饒益故，非為自益，超果地故。若彼一切未離欲貪及離欲貪諸異生類，持己所有施諸有情，此施名為為二俱益。若彼聖者已離欲貪，奉施制多除順現受，此施名曰不為益二，以此唯為恭敬報恩。前已總明施招大富，今次當辯施果別因。頌曰：

The treatise says: Here, when all ordinary beings, whether not yet free from desire and craving or already free from them, take what they own and offer it to a caitya, this giving is called for one's own benefit only, because others do not gain benefit from it. When noble ones who are free from desire and craving give to sentient beings, excepting what is to be experienced in the present, this giving is called for the benefit of others only, because others obtain benefit from it and it is not for one's own benefit, since they have passed beyond the stage of the fruit. When all ordinary beings, whether not yet free from desire and craving or already free from them, take what they own and give it to sentient beings, this giving is called for the benefit of both. When noble ones who are free from desire and craving offer to a caitya, excepting what is to be experienced in the present, this giving is called for the benefit of neither, because it is only for respect and repaying kindness. Earlier it was explained in general that giving brings great wealth; now we shall explain the specific causes of the fruits of giving. A verse says:

由主財田異，故施果差別。

By differences in giver, wealth and field, the fruits of giving differ.

論曰：施有差別，由三種因，謂主、財、田有差別故，施差別故，果有差別。且由施主差別云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: There are differences in giving through three causes, namely differences in the giver, the wealth and the field; because giving differs, the fruit differs. First, how do they differ through the giver? A verse says:

主異由信等，行敬重等施，

The giver differs through faith and so on; giving with respect and so on

得尊重廣愛，應時難奪果。

brings esteem, broad love, timely and hard-to-seize fruits.

論曰：由施主成信、戒、聞等差別功德，故名主異；由主異故，施成差別；由施差別，與果有異。諸有施主具如是德，能如法行敬重等四施，如次便得尊重等四果。謂若施主行敬重施，便感常為他所尊重。若自手施，便能感得於廣大財愛樂受用。若應時施，感應時財，所須應時不過時故。若無損施，便感資財，不為他侵及火等壞。由所施財差別云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The giver is distinguished through such meritorious qualities as faith, morality and learning, and so is called different; because the giver is different, the giving becomes different; because the giving is different, the fruit differs. Givers who have such virtues and who can give in accord with the Dharma by the four kinds of giving, with respect and the rest, accordingly gain the four fruits of esteem and the rest. That is, if a giver gives with respect, he will constantly be esteemed by others. If he gives with his own hand, he will gain a fondness for and enjoyment of great wealth. If he gives at the proper time, he will gain wealth at the proper time, so that what he needs comes at the right moment and not too late. If he gives without harm, he will gain possessions that will not be seized by others or destroyed by fire and the like. How do they differ through the wealth that is given? A verse says:

財異由色等，得妙色好名，

Wealth differs through form and so on: one gains a beautiful appearance, a good name,

眾愛柔軟身，有隨時樂觸。

the love of many, a soft body, and touch that is pleasant at the proper times.

論曰：由所施財或闕或具色香味觸，如次便得或闕或具妙色等果。謂所施財色具足故便感妙色。香具足故便感好名，如香芬馥遍諸方故。味具足故便感眾愛，如味美妙眾所愛故。觸具足故感柔軟身及有隨時生樂受觸，如女寶等。果有減者，由因闕故，如是亦由具色香等故名財異。由財異故，施體及果皆有差別。由所施田差別云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Because the wealth given is either lacking in or possesses form, smell, taste and touch, one accordingly gains either lacking or complete fruits such as a beautiful appearance. That is, because the gift is complete in form, one gains a beautiful appearance. Because it is complete in smell, one gains a good name, as a fragrance spreads in all directions. Because it is complete in taste, one gains the love of many, as a fine taste is loved by all. Because it is complete in touch, one gains a soft body and touch that is pleasant at the proper times, as with the jewel-woman and the like. A diminished fruit comes from a deficient cause, and in this way wealth is called different through possessing form, smell and so on. Because of the difference of wealth, both the substance of the giving and its fruit differ. How do they differ through the field in which one gives? A verse says:

田異由趣苦，恩德有差別。

The field differs through destiny, suffering, kindness and virtue.

論曰：由所施田趣、苦、恩德各有差別，故名田異，由田異故施果有殊。由趣別者，如世尊說：若施傍生受百倍果，施犯戒人受千倍果。由苦別者，如七有依福業事中，先說應施客行病侍、園林常食及寒風熱隨時食等。復說若有具足淨信男子女人，成此所說七種有依福業事者，所獲福德不可取量。由恩別者，如父母、師及餘有恩。如熊鹿等，《本生經》說諸有恩類。由德別者，如契經言：若施持戒人，受億倍果等。於諸施福最勝者何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Through the field in which one gives, there are differences of destiny, suffering, kindness and virtue, and so it is called different; because the field differs, the fruit of giving differs. As for difference of destiny, the World-Honored One said: If one gives to an animal, one receives a hundredfold fruit; if one gives to one who has broken the precepts, one receives a thousandfold fruit. As for difference of suffering, among the seven bases of meritorious action with dependence, it was first said that one should give to travelers, to the sick and to those who attend them, to gardens and forests, to constant meals, and to food in cold winds and heat at the appropriate times. It further says that if there are men and women who have complete pure faith and who accomplish these seven bases of meritorious action with dependence, the merit they obtain cannot be measured. As for difference of kindness, there are parents, teachers and others who have shown kindness, as with bears, deer and so on; the Jataka tells of those among the animals who showed kindness. As for difference of virtue, as the sutra says: If one gives to one who keeps the precepts, one receives a hundred-million-fold fruit, and so on. What is the most supreme among the merits of giving? A verse says:

脫於勝菩薩，第八施最勝。

Liberated to the superior Bodhisattva, the eighth giving is the most supreme.

論曰：薄伽梵說：若離染者，於離染者施諸資財，於財施中此為最勝。若諸菩薩所行惠施，是普利樂諸有情因。雖不名為脫施於脫，而於施福亦為最勝。除此更有八種施中，第八施福亦為最勝。八施者何？一隨至施、二怖畏施、三報恩施、四求報施、五習先施、六希天施、七要名施、八為莊嚴心為資助心為資瑜伽為得上義而行惠施。隨至施者，宿舊師言：隨近己至方能施與。怖畏施者，謂見此財壞相現前，寧施不失。習先施者，謂習先人父祖家法而行惠施。餘施易了，故不別釋。如契經說：施預流向其果無量，施預流果果量更增，乃至廣說。頗有施非聖果亦無量耶？頌曰：

The treatise says: The Bhagavan said: Of those free from defilement, giving wealth to one free from defilement is the most supreme among gifts of wealth. The giving practiced by Bodhisattvas is the cause of universally benefiting and bringing happiness to all sentient beings; though it is not called giving of the liberated to the liberated, it is also the most supreme in merit of giving. Besides this, among the eight kinds of giving, the merit of the eighth giving is also the most supreme. What are the eight kinds of giving? First, giving to whoever comes along; second, giving out of fear; third, giving to repay kindness; fourth, giving in hope of a reward; fifth, giving out of habit from what was done earlier; sixth, giving in hope of rebirth in heaven; seventh, giving to gain a name; and eighth, giving in order to adorn the mind, to support the mind, to provide the equipment for yoga, and to gain the supreme meaning. As for giving to whoever comes along, the old masters say: One gives to those who come near. As for giving out of fear, it means that seeing signs of the ruin of this wealth appear before one, one would rather give than lose it. As for giving out of habit, it means following the household tradition of one's forefathers and giving. The other kinds of giving are easy to understand, so they are not explained separately. As the sutra says: The fruit of giving to one heading toward the stream-enterer's fruit is immeasurable, and the fruit of giving to one who has attained the stream-enterer's fruit is still greater, and so on in detail. Is there giving that is not to a noble one and yet whose fruit is also immeasurable? A verse says:

父母病法師，最後生菩薩，

Parents, the sick, the Dharma teacher, the Bodhisattva in his last birth:

設非證聖者，施果亦無量。

even if they are not noble ones who have realized the truth, the fruit of giving to them is also immeasurable.

論曰：如是五種設是異生，但施亦能招無量果。住最後有，名最後生。法師四田中，是何田所攝？是恩田攝。所以者何？為諸世間大善友故、無明所盲者能施慧眼故、開示世間安危事故、令有情生起無漏法身故。以要說者，善說法師乃至能為佛所作事故，於彼行施便招無量果。欲知諸業輕重相者，應知輕重略由六因。其六者何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Even if these five are ordinary beings, giving to them can nevertheless bring immeasurable fruits. One who abides in the last existence is called one in the last birth. Among the four fields, which is the Dharma teacher included in? He is included in the field of kindness. Why? Because he is a great good friend to all the world, because he gives the eye of wisdom to those blinded by ignorance, because he reveals what is safe and dangerous in the world, and because he causes sentient beings to give rise to the undefiled Dharma body. In short, a good Dharma teacher can do what the Buddha does, and so giving to him brings an immeasurable fruit. If one wishes to know the weightier and lighter aspects of karmas, one should know that heaviness and lightness depend briefly on six causes. What are the six? A verse says:

後起田根本，加行思意樂，

The later act, the field, the root, the preparatory effort, the volition, the intention:

由此下上故，業成下上品。

through these, lower and upper, karma becomes of lower or higher grade.

論曰：後起者，謂作已隨作。田，謂於彼作損作益。根本者，謂根本業道。加行者，謂引彼身語。思，謂由彼業道究竟。意樂者，謂所有意趣，我應造作如是如是、我當造作如是如是。或有諸業唯由後起所攝受故得成重品，定安立彼異熟果故。或有諸業由田成重，或有於田由根本力成重非餘，如父母田行殺罪重，非盜等業由餘成重。例此應思。若有六因皆是上品，此業最重。翻此最輕，除此中間非最輕重。如契經說：有二種業，一造作業、二增長業。何因說業名增長耶？由五種因。何等為五？頌曰：

The treatise says: The later act means what is done after the action. The field means that in respect of which harm or benefit is done. The root means the root path of action. The preparatory effort means the bodily and verbal action that leads up to it. Volition means that by which that path of action is brought to completion. Intention means whatever one has in mind, such as: I should do this and this; I shall do this and this. There are karmas that become heavy only because they are taken up by the later act, which fixes the fruit of their maturation. There are karmas that become heavy through the field, and some that become heavy through the root with respect to the field, not through the others; for example, killing parents, who are a field, is a heavy crime, while stealing and the like do not become heavy through the other factors. One should think through the rest by analogy. If all six causes are of the highest grade, this karma is the heaviest. The opposite is the lightest, and those in between are neither the lightest nor the heaviest. As the sutra says: There are two kinds of karma, karma that is done and karma that is increased. For what reasons is karma called increased? By five causes. What are the five? A verse says:

由審思圓滿，無惡作對治，

Through careful thought, completion, absence of remorse and antidote,

有伴異熟故，此業名增長。

having companions, and maturation, this karma is called increased.

論曰：由審思故者，謂彼所作業，非先全不思、非率爾思作。由圓滿故者，謂諸有情中，或由一惡行便墮惡趣，或乃至三；或由一業道便墮惡趣，或乃至十。此中若有齊此量業應墮惡趣，未圓滿時但名造作不名增長，若此已圓滿亦得增長名。由無惡作對治故者，謂無追悔無對治業。由有伴故者，謂作不善業，不善為助伴。由異熟故者，謂定與異熟，善翻此應知。異此諸業唯名造作，如前所明。未離欲等持己所有奉施制多，此施名為唯為自益。既無受者，福如何成？頌曰：

The treatise says: Through careful thought means that the action done was not done entirely without prior thought, nor done on a sudden impulse. Through completion means that among sentient beings, some fall into evil destinies through one evil act, or up to three, or through one path of action, or up to ten. Here, if there is such a measure of karma as should lead to falling into evil destinies, then before it is complete it is only called done and not called increased, and once it is complete it is also given the name increased. Through absence of remorse and antidote means that there is no regret and no counteracting action. Through having companions means that in doing unwholesome karma, the unwholesome serves as companions. Through maturation means that it will certainly yield maturation; one should know that the wholesome is the reverse of this. Karmas other than these are called only done, as explained above. Those not yet free from desire and so on take what they have and offer it to a caitya, and this giving is called for one's own benefit only. Since there is no recipient, how is merit accomplished? A verse says:

制多捨類福，如慈等無受。

Merit of the kind of giving up is like loving-kindness and the like: there is no recipient.

論曰：福有二類，一捨、二受。捨類福者，謂由善心但捨資財施福便起。受類福者，謂所施田受用施物施福方起。於制多所奉施供具，雖無受類，有捨類福。彼既不受，福由何生？復以何因知福生者要由彼受不受不生？不受於他，無攝益故。此非定證，若福要由攝益他成，則修慈等及正見等應不生福。是故應許供養制多有多福生，如修慈等。謂如有一修慈等定，雖無受者及攝益他，而從自心生無量福。如是有德者，雖已滅過去，而追伸敬養，福由自心生。豈不唐捐此施敬業？不爾，發業心方勝故。謂如有一欲害怨家，彼命雖終猶懷怨想，發起種種惡身語業，生多非福非但起心。如是大師雖已過去，追伸敬養起身語業，方生多福非但起心。若於善田殖施業種可招愛果，若於惡田雖施但應招非愛果。此不應爾。所以者何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Merit is of two kinds, giving up and receiving. The merit of giving up means that through a wholesome mind, merely by giving up possessions the merit of giving arises. The merit of receiving means that the merit of giving arises when the field of giving makes use of the gift. In offering articles to a caitya, though there is no merit of the receiving kind, there is merit of the giving-up kind. Since the caitya does not receive, from what does merit arise? And by what reason is it known that merit arises only when received and not otherwise? Without being received by another, one does not benefit them. This is not a decisive proof, for if merit had to be accomplished through benefiting others, then cultivating loving-kindness and right view and the like would not produce merit. Therefore one should admit that offering to a caitya produces much merit, as with cultivating loving-kindness. That is, one who cultivates concentration on loving-kindness and the like, though there is no recipient and no one is benefited, produces immeasurable merit from his own mind. Likewise, for one who has virtue and has passed away in the past, if one makes offerings in reverence, merit arises from one's own mind. Is that giving and respectful action then in vain? No, because the mind that initiates the action is the superior factor. For example, if someone wishes to harm an enemy, even after the enemy's life has ended he still holds hatred and gives rise to various evil bodily and verbal acts, and produces much demerit, not merely from the mind arising. In the same way, though the Great Teacher has passed away, if one in memory makes offerings and gives rise to bodily and verbal acts of respect, much merit arises, not merely from the mind arising. One might think: If one plants the seed of giving in a good field one can obtain a lovely fruit, but if one gives in a bad field the unlovely fruit would be obtained. That is not so. Why? A verse says:

惡田有愛果，種果無倒故。

Even in a bad field there are lovely fruits, since seed and fruit are not reversed.

論曰：現見田中種果無倒，從末度迦種末度迦果生，其味極美。從賃婆種賃婆果生，其味極苦。非由田力，種果有倒。如是施主雖於惡田，而益他心殖諸施種，但招愛果不招非愛。然由田過，令所殖種或生果少或果全無。施類福業事傍論已了，今次應辯戒類福業事。頌曰：

The treatise says: We see that in the field, seed and fruit are not reversed: from a madhuka seed, the madhuka fruit grows, with an extremely sweet taste; from a nimba seed, the nimba fruit grows, with an extremely bitter taste. It is not through the power of the field that seed and fruit are reversed. In the same way, a giver, though in a bad field, who plants the seeds of giving with a mind to benefit others will bring only lovely fruits and not unlovely ones. However, through the fault of the field, the seeds planted may produce few fruits or none at all. The digression on the basis of meritorious action of the kind of giving is finished; now we shall explain the basis of meritorious action of the kind of morality. A verse says:

離犯戒及遮，名戒各有二，

Abstaining from transgressions and from the prohibited is called morality, each of two kinds;

非犯戒因壞，依治滅淨等。

not spoiled by transgression or by its causes, relying on antidote and cessation, pure, and so on.

論曰：諸不善色名為犯戒，此中性罪立犯戒名。遮謂所遮非時食等，雖非性罪而佛為護法及有情別意遮止，受戒者犯亦名犯戒，簡性罪故但立遮名。離性及遮，俱說名戒。此各有二，謂表、無表，以身語業為自性故。已略辯戒自性差別。若具四德得清淨名，與此相違名不清淨。言四德者，一者不為犯戒所壞，犯戒謂前諸不善色。二者不為彼因所壞，彼因謂貪等煩惱隨煩惱。三者依治，謂依念住等，此能對治犯戒及因故。四者依滅，謂依涅槃迴向涅槃非勝生故。等言為顯復有異說。有說：戒淨由五種因，一根本淨、二眷屬淨、三非尋害、四念攝受、五迴向寂。有餘師說：戒有四種，一怖畏戒，謂怖不活、惡名、治罰、惡趣畏故，受護屍羅。二希望戒，謂貪諸有勝位、多財、恭敬、稱譽受持淨戒。三順覺支戒，謂為求解脫及正見等受持淨戒。四清淨戒，謂無漏戒，彼能永離業惑垢故。已辯戒類，修類當辯。頌曰：

The treatise says: All unwholesome forms are called transgressions, and among these, natural offenses are called transgressions. "Prohibited" refers to what is forbidden, such as eating at the wrong time; although these are not natural offenses, the Buddha forbade them to protect the Dharma and sentient beings, with a separate intention. One who has received the precepts and violates them also commits a transgression, but to distinguish from natural offenses it is called only a prohibition. Abstaining from natural offenses and from what is prohibited are both called morality. Each is of two kinds, manifest and unmanifest, because they take bodily and verbal action as their own nature. The nature and distinctions of morality have been briefly explained. If it possesses four virtues it is called pure, and the opposite is called impure. The four virtues are: first, not being spoiled by transgression, which means the unwholesome forms mentioned above; second, not being spoiled by its causes, which are afflictions such as greed and the secondary afflictions; third, relying on antidote, which means relying on the foundations of mindfulness and so on, since these can counteract transgression and its causes; and fourth, relying on cessation, which means relying on nirvana and dedicating to nirvana and not to superior rebirth. The word "and so on" shows that there are other explanations. Some say that morality is pure through five causes: purity of root, purity of retinue, non-harmful thought, mindful embrace, and dedication to quiescence. Other masters say that there are four kinds of morality. First, morality out of fear: out of fear of not being able to live, of a bad name, of punishment, and of evil destinies, one receives and guards sila. Second, morality out of hope: out of craving for superior status in existence, great wealth, respect and praise, one receives and upholds pure morality. Third, morality in accord with the limbs of awakening: seeking liberation and right view and so on, one receives and upholds pure morality. Fourth, pure morality: this is undefiled morality, which can forever leave behind the stains of karma and affliction. Having explained the kind of morality, we shall now explain the kind of cultivation. A verse says:

等引善名修，極能燻心故。

Wholesomeness in equipoise is called cultivation, because it perfumes the mind to the utmost.

論曰：言等引善，其體是何？謂三摩地，自性俱有。脩名何義？謂燻習心，以定地善於心相續極能燻習令成德類，如花燻苣蕂。是故獨名修。前辯施福能招大富，戒修二類所感云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Of wholesomeness in equipoise, what is its substance? It is samadhi, with the nature of what coexists with it. What does "cultivation" mean? It means perfuming and habituating the mind; wholesomeness at the stage of concentration perfumes and habituates the mental continuum to the utmost, making it into a virtuous kind, like flowers perfuming sesame. This is why it alone is called cultivation. We have explained that the merit of giving brings great wealth; what do the kinds of morality and cultivation bring about? A verse says:

戒修勝如次，感生天解脫。

Morality and cultivation are superior in order, bringing rebirth in heaven and liberation.

論曰：戒感生天，修感解脫。勝言為顯就勝為言，謂施亦能感生天果，就勝說戒。持戒亦能感離繫果，就勝說修。經說四人能生梵福：一為供養如來䭾都建窣堵波於未曾處，二為供養四方僧伽造寺施園四事供給，三佛弟子破已能和，四於有情普修慈等。如是梵福其量云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Morality brings rebirth in heaven, and cultivation brings liberation. The word "superior" shows that this is said in terms of what is most prominent: giving can also bring the fruit of rebirth in heaven, but morality is said to do so as the most prominent; keeping the precepts can also bring the fruit of disjunction, but cultivation is said to do so as the most prominent. The sutra says there are four kinds of people who produce Brahma-merit: first, one who in order to make offerings to the relics of the Tathagata builds a stupa in a place where there was none before; second, one who builds monasteries and gives gardens and the four requisites for the Sangha of the four directions; third, one who reconciles disciples of the Buddha who have broken apart; and fourth, one who universally cultivates loving-kindness and so on toward sentient beings. What is the measure of such Brahma-merit? A verse says:

感劫生天等，為一梵福量。

The merit that brings a kalpa of rebirth in heaven and so on is one measure of Brahma-merit.

論曰：先軌範師作如是說：隨福能感一劫生天受諸快樂是一福量，由彼所感受快樂時同梵輔天一劫壽故。以於餘部有伽他言：

The treatise says: The earlier master of the rules spoke thus: The merit that can bring about rebirth in heaven for one kalpa, enjoying various pleasures, is one measure of merit, because the time of enjoying the pleasures it brings about is the same as the one-kalpa lifespan of the gods of Brahma's retinue. For in another school there is a gatha that says:

有信正見人，修十勝行者，

A person with faith and right view, who cultivates the ten superior practices,

便為生梵福，感劫天樂故。

thereby produces Brahma-merit, bringing the pleasures of heaven for a kalpa.

毘婆沙師作如是說：即於分別妙相業中，所辯福量此即同彼。等言為顯如是異說。財施已說。法施云何？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) The Vaibhasika masters speak thus: The measure of merit explained in the discussion of the karma of the excellent marks is the same as this. The word "and so on" shows such different views. Giving of wealth has been explained. What is giving of the Dharma? A verse says:

法施謂如實，無染辯經等。

Giving of the Dharma is explaining the sutras and so on truthfully and without defilement.

論曰：若能如實為諸有情以無染心辯契經等令生正解，名為法施。故有顛倒或染汙心求利名譽恭敬辯者，是人便損自他大福。前已別釋三福業事，今釋經中順三分善。頌曰：

The treatise says: If one can truthfully, for the sake of sentient beings and with an undefiled mind, explain the sutras and so on so that they give rise to right understanding, this is called giving of the Dharma. Therefore, one who explains with a mistaken or defiled mind, seeking gain, fame or respect, damages the great merit of himself and others. The three bases of meritorious action have been explained separately; now we explain the three kinds of wholesome factors in accord with the sutras. A verse says:

順福順解脫，順決擇分三，

Those in accord with merit, with liberation, and with penetration, three kinds,

感愛果涅槃，聖道善如次。

bring lovely fruit, nirvana, and the noble path, wholesome in order.

論曰：言順福分者，謂感世間可愛果善。順解脫分者，謂定能感涅槃果善。此善生已，令彼有情名為身中有涅槃法。若有聞說生死有過、諸法無我、涅槃有德，身毛為竪悲泣墮淚，當知彼已殖順解脫分善。如見得雨場有芽生，知其穴中先有種子。順決擇分者，謂近能感聖道果善，即煖等四，後當廣說。如世間所說書、印、算、文、數，此五自體云何應知？頌曰：

The treatise says: The part in accord with merit is the wholesomeness that brings about lovely fruit in the world. The part in accord with liberation is the wholesomeness that surely brings about the fruit of nirvana. When this wholesomeness arises, that sentient being is said to have the Dharma of nirvana within his body. If one hears that birth and death have faults, that dharmas are without self, and that nirvana has merits, and one's body hair stands on end and one weeps and sheds tears, one should know that he has already planted wholesomeness in accord with the part of liberation. As when one sees sprouts growing after rain in a field, one knows that seeds were already in the ground. The part in accord with penetration is the wholesomeness that closely brings about the fruit of the noble path, namely the four starting with warmth, which will be explained in detail later. As the world speaks of writing, seals, calculation, composition and numbers, how should the own-nature of these five be understood? A verse says:

諸如理所起，三業並能發，

Those that arise from proper reasoning, the three kinds of action together with what gives rise to them,

如次為書印、算文數自體。

are in order the own-nature of writing and seals, calculation and composition, and numbers.

論曰：如理起者，正加行生。三業，應知即身語意。能發，即是能起此三，如其所應受想等法。此中書印以前身業及彼能發五蘊為體，次算及文以前語業及彼能發五蘊為體，後數應知以前意業及彼能發四蘊為體，但由意思能數法故。今應略辯諸法異名。頌曰：

The treatise says: Arising from proper reasoning means arising from right preparatory effort. The three actions should be known to be body, speech and mind. What gives rise to them are the factors that bring about these three, such as feeling and conception, as appropriate. Of these, writing and seals take as their substance the former, bodily action, and the five aggregates that give rise to it; calculation and composition take as their substance the former, verbal action, and the five aggregates that give rise to it; and numbers should be known to take as their substance the former, mental action, and the four aggregates that give rise to it, since it is only through the thought of the mind that the dharmas can be counted. Now we should briefly explain the other names of dharmas. A verse says:

善無漏名妙，染有罪覆劣，

The wholesome and undefiled is called excellent; the defiled is called blameworthy, obscured and inferior;

善有為應習，解脫名無上。

the wholesome conditioned is to be practiced; liberation is called unsurpassed.

論曰：善無漏法亦名為妙。諸染汙法亦名有罪有覆及劣。准此妙劣，餘中已成，故頌不辯。諸有為善亦名應習，餘非應習義準已成。何故無為不名應習？不可數習令增長故。又習為果，此無果故。解脫涅槃亦名無上，以無一法能勝涅槃，是善是常超眾法故。餘法有上，義準已成。

The treatise says: Undefiled wholesome dharmas are also called excellent. Defiled dharmas are also called blameworthy, obscured and inferior. From this excellent and inferior, the middle ones are already established, so the verse does not explain them. Wholesome conditioned dharmas are also called to be practiced, and by implication others are not to be practiced. Why are the unconditioned not called to be practiced? Because they cannot be repeatedly practiced so as to be increased. Also, practice has a fruit, and these have no fruit. Liberation, nirvana, is also called unsurpassed, because no single dharma can surpass nirvana; it is wholesome and permanent and goes beyond all dharmas. Other dharmas have something above them, as is established by implication.

尊者世親造

Composed by Venerable Vasubandhu

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by the Tripitaka Master Xuanzang by imperial command

分別隨眠品第五之一

Chapter 5 on the Analysis of the Latent Tendencies, Part 1

前言世別皆由業生，業由隨眠方得生長，離隨眠業無感有能。所以者何？隨眠有幾？頌曰：

It was said earlier that the differences among worlds all arise from karma, and that karma grows through the latent tendencies; apart from the latent tendencies, karma has no power to bring about existence. Why? How many latent tendencies are there? A verse says:

隨眠諸有本，此差別有六，

The latent tendencies are the root of all existence; their distinctions are six:

謂貪瞋亦慢，無明見及疑。

greed, hatred, also pride, ignorance, views, and doubt.

論曰：由此隨眠是諸有本，故業離此無感有能。何故隨眠能為有本？以諸煩惱現起能為十種事故，一堅根本、二立相續、三治自田、四引等流、五發業有、六攝自具、七迷所緣、八導識流、九越善品、十廣縛義，令不能越自界地故。由此隨眠能為有本，故業因此有感有能。此略應知差別有六，謂貪、瞋、慢、無明、見、疑。頌說亦言，意顯慢等亦由貪力於境隨增，由貪隨增義如後辯。及聲顯六體各不同。若諸隨眠體唯有六，何緣經說有七隨眠？頌曰：

The treatise says: Because these latent tendencies are the root of all existence, karma apart from them has no power to bring about existence. Why can the latent tendencies be the root of existence? Because when the afflictions are active they can do ten things: first, make the root firm; second, establish continuity; third, nourish their own field; fourth, draw out the outflow; fifth, give rise to karmic existence; sixth, gather their own equipment; seventh, be deluded about the object; eighth, lead the stream of consciousness; ninth, pass beyond the wholesome divisions; and tenth, bind widely, so that one cannot go beyond one's own realm and ground. Because of this the latent tendencies can be the root of existence, and so karma has the power to bring about existence through them. In brief, one should know that there are six distinctions: greed, hatred, pride, ignorance, views and doubt. The word "also" in the verse implies that pride and the others also increase with respect to their objects through the power of greed; the sense in which they increase through greed will be explained later. The word "and" shows that the substances of the six are each different. If the substance of the latent tendencies is only six, why does the sutra speak of seven latent tendencies? A verse says:

六由貪異七，有貪上二界，

Six become seven by dividing greed, existence-greed for the upper two realms,

於內門轉故，為遮解脫想。

since it operates through the inner door, to prevent the notion of liberation.

論曰：即前所說六隨眠中分貪為二，故經說七。何等為七？一欲貪隨眠、二瞋隨眠、三有貪隨眠、四慢隨眠、五無明隨眠、六見隨眠、七疑隨眠。欲貪隨眠依何義釋？為欲貪體即是隨眠？為是欲貪之隨眠義？於餘六義徵問亦爾。若爾何失？二俱有過。若欲貪體即是隨眠，便違契經。如契經說：若有一類，非於多時為欲貪纏纏心而住，設心暫爾起欲貪纏，尋如實知出離方便，彼由此故於欲貪纏能正遣除並隨眠斷。若是欲貪之隨眠義，隨眠應是心不相應，便違對法。如本論說：欲貪隨眠三根相應。毘婆沙師作如是說：欲貪等體即是隨眠。豈不違經？無違經失，並隨眠者並隨縛故。或經於得假說隨眠，如火等中立苦等想。阿毘達磨依實相說，即諸煩惱說名隨眠，由此隨眠是相應法。何理為證知定相應？以諸隨眠染惱心故、覆障心故、能違善故，謂隨眠力能染惱心。未生善不生、已生善退失，故隨眠體非不相應。若不相應能為此事，則諸善法應無起時，以不相應恆現前故。既諸善法容有起時，故知隨眠是相應法。此皆非證。所以者何？若許隨眠非相應者，不許上三事是隨眠所為。然經部師所說最善。經部於此所說如何？彼說欲貪之隨眠義，然隨眠體非心相應非不相應，無別物故，煩惱睡位說名隨眠，於覺位中即名纏故。何名為睡？謂不現行種子隨逐。何名為覺？謂諸煩惱現起纏心。何等名為煩惱種子？謂自體上差別功能，從煩惱生能生煩惱。如念種子是證智生，能生當念功能差別。又如芽等有前果生，能生後果功能差別。若執煩惱別有隨眠心不相應名煩惱種，應許念種非但功能別有不相應能引生後念。此既不爾，彼云何然？差別因緣不可得故。若爾，六六契經相違，經說於樂受有貪隨眠故。經但說有，不言爾時即有隨眠。何所違害？於何時有？於彼睡時，或假於因立隨眠想。傍論且止，應辯正論。

The treatise says: Among the six latent tendencies just mentioned, greed is divided into two, and so the sutra speaks of seven. What are the seven? First, the latent tendency of desire-greed; second, of hatred; third, of existence-greed; fourth, of pride; fifth, of ignorance; sixth, of views; seventh, of doubt. How is the latent tendency of desire-greed to be explained: is the substance of desire-greed itself the latent tendency, or is it the sense of lying latent of desire-greed? The same question applies to the other six. What fault is there? There is fault on both sides. If the substance of desire-greed is itself the latent tendency, this contradicts the sutra. As the sutra says: If someone is not, for a long time, covered by the entanglement of desire-greed and abiding in it, and if the mind briefly gives rise to the entanglement of desire-greed but he promptly knows truthfully the means of renunciation, then by this he can rightly dispel the entanglement of desire-greed and also cut off the latent tendency. If it is only the sense of lying latent of desire-greed, then the latent tendency would be dissociated from mind, which contradicts the Abhidharma. As the basic treatise says: The latent tendency of desire-greed is associated with three roots. The Vaibhasika masters say: The substance of desire-greed and the like is itself the latent tendency. Does this not contradict the sutra? There is no fault of contradicting the sutra, for "together with" the latent tendency means together with the bond. Or in the sutra the latent tendency is spoken of provisionally with reference to acquisition, as one sets up the notion of suffering and so on in respect of fire and the like. The Abhidharma speaks according to the real nature, namely all afflictions are called latent tendencies, and so these latent tendencies are associated dharmas. By what reasoning is it proved that they are definitely associated? Because the latent tendencies defile and afflict the mind, because they cover and obstruct the mind, and because they oppose the wholesome; that is, by the power of the latent tendencies the mind is defiled and afflicted, unarisen wholesomeness does not arise, and arisen wholesomeness is lost. So the substance of the latent tendencies is not dissociated. If they were dissociated and could do such things, then wholesome dharmas would never have occasion to arise, because the dissociated would always be present. Since wholesome dharmas do sometimes arise, one knows that the latent tendencies are associated dharmas. None of these is proof. Why? If one admits that latent tendencies are not associated, one does not admit that the above three things are done by the latent tendencies. However, what the Sautrantika masters say is the best. What do the Sautrantikas say here? They say that the sense of lying latent of desire-greed holds, but the substance of the latent tendency is neither associated with mind nor dissociated from it, because there is no separate entity; the afflictions in the state of sleep are called latent tendencies, and in the state of waking they are called entanglements. What is called sleep? It is the state in which seeds follow along without being active. What is called waking? It is the state in which the afflictions are active and entangle the mind. What are called the seeds of afflictions? They are the particular capacities on the substance itself, which arise from afflictions and can give rise to afflictions. As the seed of mindfulness arises from realizing wisdom and is a particular capacity that can give rise to later mindfulness. And as a sprout and the like arises from a former fruit and is a particular capacity that can give rise to a later fruit. If one holds that the afflictions have a separate latent tendency dissociated from mind called the seed of affliction, then one must allow that the seed of mindfulness also has a separate dissociated one that can draw out later mindfulness. Since this is not so, how could the other be so? Because no distinct causal condition can be found. If so, it contradicts the sutra of six sixes, which says there is a latent tendency of greed in pleasant feeling. The sutra only says that it exists and does not say that the latent tendency exists at that time. What is contradicted? When does it exist? At the time of sleep; or one sets up the notion of latent tendency provisionally in terms of the cause. The digression stops here; we should explain the main discussion.

言貪分二，謂欲、有貪。此中有貪以何為體？謂色無色二界中貪。此名何因唯於彼立？彼貪多託內門轉故。謂彼二界多起定貪，一切定貪於內門轉，故唯於彼立有貪名。又由有人於上二界起解脫想，為遮彼故，謂於上界立有貪名，顯彼所緣非真解脫，此中自體立以有名。彼諸有情多於等至及所依止深生味著，故說彼唯味著自體；非味著境，離欲貪故，由此唯彼立有貪名。既說有貪在上二界，義準欲界貪名欲貪，故於頌中不別顯示。即上所說六種隨眠，於本論中復分為十。如何成十？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) The statement that greed is divided in two means desire-greed and existence-greed. Here, what is the substance of existence-greed? It is greed in the form and formless realms. For what reason is the name set up only for those? Because that greed mostly operates through the inner door. That is, in those two realms one mostly gives rise to greed for concentration, and all greed for concentration operates through the inner door, so the name existence-greed is set up only for them. Also, because some people give rise to the notion of liberation in the upper two realms, in order to prevent that, the name existence-greed is set up in the upper realms, to show that the object of that is not true liberation, and here the name "existence" is set up for its own substance. Those sentient beings mostly develop deep taste and attachment to attainments and to their basis, and so it is said that they are attached only to their own substance and not to an object, since they are free from desire-greed; thus the name existence-greed is set up only for them. Since it is said that existence-greed is in the upper two realms, by implication greed in the desire realm is called desire-greed, so the verse does not show it separately. The six latent tendencies just mentioned are further divided into ten in the basic treatise. How do they become ten? A verse says:

六由見異十，異謂有身見，

The six become ten by differences of view, the differences being the view of a real self,

邊執見邪見，見取戒禁取。

the view of extremes, wrong view, view-grasping, and grasping of rules and rituals.

論曰：六隨眠中見行異為五，餘非見五，積數總成十，故於十中五是見性：一有身見、二邊執見、三邪見、四見取、五戒禁取。五非見性：一貪、二瞋、三慢、四無明、五疑。又即所說六種隨眠，於本論中說九十八。依何義說九十八耶？頌曰：

The treatise says: Among the six latent tendencies, views divide into five by differences of mode, and the other five are not views; adding up the numbers gives ten. So among the ten, five are of the nature of views: first, the view of a real self; second, the view of extremes; third, wrong view; fourth, view-grasping; fifth, grasping of rules and rituals. Five are not of the nature of views: first, greed; second, hatred; third, pride; fourth, ignorance; fifth, doubt. Furthermore, the six latent tendencies just mentioned are said in the basic treatise to be ninety-eight. On what basis are ninety-eight spoken of? A verse says:

六行部界異，故成九十八，

Through differences of the six modes, divisions and realms, they become ninety-eight:

欲見苦等斷，十七七八四，

in the desire realm, those abandoned by seeing suffering and so on: seventeen, seven, eight, four,

謂如次具離，三二見見疑，

that is, in order, complete, then lacking three, two, views and views and doubt,

色無色除瞋，餘等如欲說。

in the form and formless realms, excluding hatred, the rest are the same as in the desire realm.

論曰：六種隨眠由行、部、界有差別，故成九十八。謂於六中由見行異分別為十，如前已辯。即此所辯十種隨眠，部、界不同成九十八。部謂見四諦、修所斷五部。界謂欲色無色三界。且於欲界五部不同，乘十隨眠成三十六。謂見苦諦至修所斷，如次有十七七八四。即上五部，於十隨眠一二一一如其次第，具離三見二見見疑。謂見苦諦所斷具十；見集滅諦所斷各七，離有身見、邊見、戒取；見道諦所斷八，離有身見及邊執見。修所斷四，離見及疑，如是合成三十六種。前三十二名見所斷，才見諦時彼則斷故；最後有四名修所斷，見四諦已後後時中數數習道彼方斷故。如是已顯十隨眠中薩迦耶見唯在一部，謂見苦所斷。邊執見亦爾。戒禁取通在二部，謂見苦、見道所斷。邪見通四部，謂見苦、集、滅、道所斷，見取疑亦爾。餘貪等四各通五部，謂見四諦及修所斷。此中何相見苦所斷？乃至何相是修所斷？若緣見此所斷為境名見此所斷，餘名修所斷。如是六中見分十二、疑分為四、餘四各五，故欲界中有三十六。色無色界五部各除瞋，餘與欲同，故各三十一。由是本論以六隨眠行、部、界殊說九十八。於此所辯九十八中，八十八見所斷，忍所害故。十隨眠修所斷，智所害故。如是所說見、修所斷，為決定爾？不爾。云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The six kinds of latent tendency differ by mode, division and realm, and so become ninety-eight. That is, among the six, those divided by difference of mode of view become ten, as explained above. These ten latent tendencies differ by division and realm and become ninety-eight. The divisions are those abandoned by seeing the four truths and those abandoned by cultivation, five divisions. The realms are the three realms of desire, form and formless. First, in the desire realm, the five divisions differ, and multiplying the ten latent tendencies gives thirty-six. That is, from those abandoned by seeing the truth of suffering to those abandoned by cultivation, the numbers are in order ten, seven, seven, eight, and four. For the five divisions just mentioned, among the ten latent tendencies, in order: one is complete, then lacking three views, then two views, then views and doubt. That is, those abandoned by seeing the truth of suffering are complete, ten; those abandoned by seeing the truths of origin and cessation are seven each, lacking the view of a real self, the view of extremes and the grasping of rules and rituals; those abandoned by seeing the truth of the path are eight, lacking the view of a real self and the view of extremes; those abandoned by cultivation are four, lacking views and doubt. Together these make thirty-six kinds. The first thirty-two are called abandoned by seeing, since they are abandoned as soon as one sees the truths; the last four are called abandoned by cultivation, since they are abandoned only afterward, when one repeatedly practices the path after seeing the four truths. This also shows that among the ten latent tendencies, the view of a real self is found in only one division, namely what is abandoned by seeing suffering, and the view of extremes is the same. The grasping of rules and rituals is found in two divisions, namely what is abandoned by seeing suffering and by seeing the path. Wrong view is found in four divisions, namely what is abandoned by seeing suffering, origin, cessation and path, and view-grasping and doubt are the same. The other four, greed and the rest, are each found in five divisions, namely seeing the four truths and cultivation. Here, what characteristics are abandoned by seeing suffering, and what characteristics are abandoned by cultivation? If, when one takes as object what is abandoned by seeing this, it is called abandoned by seeing this, the rest are called abandoned by cultivation. Thus among the six, views divide into twelve, doubt into four, and the other four five each, so there are thirty-six in the desire realm. In the form and formless realms, each of the five divisions excludes hatred and the rest is the same as in the desire realm, so each has thirty-one. Therefore the basic treatise speaks of ninety-eight through the differences of mode, division and realm of the six latent tendencies. Among the ninety-eight explained here, eighty-eight are abandoned by seeing, because they are cut off by acceptance, and ten latent tendencies are abandoned by cultivation, because they are cut off by knowledge. Are what are said to be abandoned by seeing and by cultivation determined in this way? Not so. How, then? A verse says:

忍所害隨眠，有頂唯見斷，

The latent tendencies cut off by acceptance: for the peak of existence, only by seeing,

餘通見修斷，智所害唯修。

the others are abandoned by both seeing and cultivation; those cut off by knowledge are only by cultivation.

論曰：忍聲通說法類智忍。於忍所害諸隨眠中有頂地攝唯見所斷，唯類智忍方能斷故。餘八地攝通見修斷，謂聖者斷唯見非修，法類智忍如應斷故。若異生斷唯修非見，數習世俗智所斷故。智所害諸隨眠一切地攝，唯修所斷，以諸聖者及諸異生如其所應，皆由數習無漏世俗智所斷故。有餘師說：外道諸仙不能伏斷見所斷惑。如《大分別諸業契經》說：離欲貪諸外道類，有緣欲界邪見現行。及《梵網經》亦說：彼類有緣欲界諸見現行。謂於前際分別論者，有執全常、有執一分、有執諸法無因生等。非色界惑緣欲界生，於欲界境已離貪故，定是欲界諸見未斷。毘婆沙師釋彼經義：起見時暫退，如提婆達多。由行有殊分見為五，名先已列，自體如何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The word "acceptance" generally refers to the acceptance of Dharma knowledge and subsequent knowledge. Among the latent tendencies cut off by acceptance, those included in the ground of the peak of existence are abandoned only by seeing, because only the acceptance of subsequent knowledge can cut them off. Those included in the other eight grounds are abandoned by both seeing and cultivation: if a noble one cuts them off, it is by seeing and not cultivation, because the acceptance of Dharma knowledge and subsequent knowledge cut off what should be cut off; if an ordinary being cuts them off, it is by cultivation and not seeing, because they are cut off by the repeatedly practiced mundane knowledge. The latent tendencies cut off by knowledge, included in all grounds, are abandoned only by cultivation, because noble ones and ordinary beings, as appropriate, all cut them off by the repeatedly practiced undefiled and mundane knowledge. Other masters say that non-Buddhist sages cannot suppress or cut off the afflictions abandoned by seeing. As the Sutra of the Great Distinction of Actions says: Non-Buddhists who are free from desire-greed still have wrong views active with the desire realm as object. And the Brahmajala Sutra also says: Such people still have views active with the desire realm as object, namely in the theories about the past: some hold that everything is permanent, some hold that part is permanent, and some hold that dharmas arise without cause, and so on. Afflictions of the form realm do not arise taking the desire realm as object, since they are already free from craving for objects of the desire realm; so the various views of the desire realm have certainly not been cut off. The Vaibhasika masters explain the meaning of that sutra as follows: When they give rise to views they briefly regress, as with Devadatta. Since views are divided into five by differences of mode, and the names were listed earlier, what is the own-nature of each? A verse says:

我我所斷常，撥無劣謂勝，

Self and what belongs to self, annihilation and permanence, denial, taking the inferior as superior,

非因道妄謂，是五見自體。

wrongly taking what is not a cause or a path as such: these are the own-nature of the five views.

論曰：執我及我所，是薩迦耶見。壞故名薩，聚謂迦耶，即是無常和合蘊義，迦耶即薩名薩迦耶。此薩迦耶即五取蘊，為遮常一想故立此名，要此想為先方執我故。毘婆沙者作如是釋：有故名薩，身義如前。勿無所緣計我我所，故說此見緣於有身。緣薩迦耶而起此見，故標此見名薩迦耶。諸見但緣有漏法者，皆應標以薩迦耶名。然佛但於我我所執摽此名者，令知此見緣薩迦耶非我我所，以我我所畢竟無故。如契經說：苾芻當知，世間沙門婆羅門等，諸有執我等，隨觀見一切，唯於五取蘊起。即於所執我我所事執斷執常，名邊執見，以妄執取斷常邊故。於實有體苦等諦中起見撥無，名為邪見。一切妄見皆顛倒轉並應名邪，而但撥無名邪見者，以過甚故。如說臭酥惡執惡等，此唯損減，餘增益故。於劣謂勝，名為見取。有漏名劣，聖所斷故。執劣為勝總名見取，理實應立見等取名，略去等言但名見取。於非因道謂因道見，一切總說名戒禁取。如大自在生主，或餘非世間因，妄起因執。投水火等種種邪行，非生天因，妄起因執，唯受持戒禁，數相應智等，非解脫道妄起道執，理實應立戒禁等取名，略去等言但名戒禁取。是謂五見自體應知。若於非因起是因見，此見何故非見集斷？頌曰：

The treatise says: Holding to a self and what belongs to a self is the view of a real self (satkayadrsti). Because it is destroyed it is called sat; the aggregate is called kaya, which means the meaning of the impermanent aggregate of combination; kaya, which is sat, is called satkaya. This satkaya is precisely the five aggregates of clinging, and the name is set up in order to prevent the notion of permanence and unity, since one holds to a self only when this notion comes first. The Vaibhasikas explain it thus: because it exists it is called sat, and the sense of body is as above. Lest it be that one calculates a self and what belongs to self without any object, therefore it is said that this view takes the existing body as object. Because this view arises with satkaya as object, this view is called satkayadrsti. All views that take only defiled dharmas as object should be labeled satkaya. However, the Buddha labeled only the holding to self and what belongs to self with this name, in order to make it known that this view takes satkaya as object and not self and what belongs to self, because self and what belongs to self ultimately do not exist. As the sutra says: Monks, know that all the ascetics and Brahmins in the world who hold to a self and the like, in whatever way they observe and see, give rise to it only with respect to the five aggregates of clinging. To hold to annihilation or permanence with respect to the very self and what belongs to self that one holds to is called the view of extremes, because one wrongly takes the extremes of annihilation and permanence. To give rise to a view that denies, with respect to the truths of suffering and so on, which have real substance, is called wrong view. All false views operate in a perverted way and all should be called wrong, but only denial is called wrong view because it is the most extreme. As in the expressions "foul butter" and "bad grasping," this only diminishes, while the others exaggerate. To take the inferior as superior is called view-grasping. The defiled is called inferior because it is to be abandoned by noble ones. To hold the inferior to be superior is called in general view-grasping; in principle it should be called grasping of views and so on, but the word "and so on" is omitted and it is only called view-grasping. To see as a cause or a path what is not a cause or a path is generally called grasping of rules and rituals. For example, wrongly holding to the idea of a cause that is the Great Lord Isvara or the Lord of Creatures or some other non-worldly cause; various wrong practices such as throwing oneself into water or fire, which are not causes of rebirth in heaven, wrongly holding them as causes; merely receiving and keeping rules and rituals, or the associated knowledge of numbers and the like, which are not the path of liberation, wrongly holding them to be a path. In principle this should be called grasping of rules, rituals and so on, but the word "and so on" is omitted and it is only called grasping of rules and rituals. These are the own-nature of the five views, which should be known. If one gives rise to a view that takes what is not a cause as a cause, why is this view not abandoned by seeing the truth of origin? A verse says:

於大自在等，非因妄執因，

Regarding the Great Lord Isvara and the like, wrongly holding what is not a cause to be a cause,

從常我倒生，故唯見苦斷。

arises from the perversions of permanence and self, and so is abandoned only by seeing suffering.

論曰：執大自在生主或餘為世間因生世間者，必先計度彼體是常一我作者方起因執。才見苦時，於自在等常執我執永斷無餘，故彼所生因執亦斷。若爾，有執投水火等種種邪行是生天因，或執但由受持戒禁等便得清淨，不應見苦斷。然本論說有諸外道起如是見立如是論，若有士夫補特伽羅受持牛戒鹿戒狗戒，便得清淨解脫出離，永超眾苦樂至超苦樂處。如是等類非因執因，一切應知。是戒禁取見苦所斷，如彼廣說。此復何因是見苦斷？迷苦諦故有太過失，緣有漏惑皆迷苦故。復有何相別戒禁取，可說彼為見道所斷？諸緣見道所斷法生，彼亦應名迷苦諦故。又緣道諦邪見及疑，若撥若疑無解脫道，如何即執此能得永清淨？若彼撥無真解脫道，妄執別有餘清淨因，是則執餘能得清淨，非邪見等。此緣見道所斷諸法，理亦不成。又若有緣見集滅諦所斷邪見等執為清淨因，此復何因非見彼斷？故所執義應更思擇。如前所說，常我倒生，為但有斯二種顛倒。應知顛倒總有四種：一於無常執常顛倒、二於諸苦執樂顛倒、三於不淨執淨顛倒、四於無我執我顛倒。如是四倒其體云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Those who hold that the Great Lord Isvara, the Lord of Creatures or another is the cause of the world and produces the world must first have calculated that this substance is permanent, one, a self and a maker, before they give rise to the holding to a cause. As soon as one sees suffering, the holding to permanence and self in Isvara and the like is cut off forever and nothing else remains, and so the holding to a cause that arose from it is also cut off. If so, someone holds that various wrong practices such as throwing oneself into water or fire are causes of rebirth in heaven, or holds that one becomes pure merely through receiving and keeping rules and rituals; these should not be abandoned by seeing suffering. However, the basic treatise says that there are non-Buddhists who give rise to such views and set up such theories: If a person or individual takes the ox-vow, the deer-vow or the dog-vow, he will become pure, liberated and delivered, forever surpassing all suffering, and even reach the place beyond suffering and pleasure. Such cases of taking what is not a cause as a cause should all be known. This grasping of rules and rituals is abandoned by seeing suffering, as explained there in detail. Why is this abandoned by seeing suffering? Because it has the great fault of being deluded about the truth of suffering, and all defilements that take defiled objects are deluded about suffering. What other characteristic distinguishes grasping of rules and rituals, such that it could be said to be abandoned by seeing the path? Any that arises taking as object what is abandoned by seeing the path should also be called deluded about suffering. And wrong view and doubt that take the truth of the path as object, whether denying or doubting that there is a path to liberation, how could one at the same time hold that this can bring about eternal purity? If one denies the true path of liberation and wrongly holds that there is some other cause of purity, then one holds that something else can bring purity, and that is not wrong view and the like. It also is not reasonable that this takes as object dharmas abandoned by seeing the path. Furthermore, if someone takes wrong view and the like, abandoned by seeing the truths of origin and cessation, as object and holds it to be a cause of purity, for what reason is this not abandoned by seeing those? Therefore what is held should be examined further. As was said earlier, permanence and self arise from perversion; are there only these two perversions? One should know that there are four perversions in all: first, the perversion of holding the impermanent to be permanent; second, the perversion of holding suffering to be pleasure; third, the perversion of holding the impure to be pure; fourth, the perversion of holding what is without self to be self. What is the substance of these four perversions? A verse says:

四顛倒自體，謂從於三見，

The own-nature of the four perversions is from three views,

唯倒推增故，想心隨見力。

since only they invert and speculate and exaggerate: conception and mind follow the power of view.

論曰：從於三見立四倒體，謂邊見中唯取常見以為常倒，諸見取中取計樂淨為樂淨倒，有身見中唯取我見以為我倒。有說：我倒攝身見全。我倒如何攝我所見？如何不攝？由倒纏故。諸有計我，於彼事中有自在力，是我所見。此即我見由二門轉：是我、屬我。若是別見由我為我，見亦應別。何故餘惑非顛倒體？要具三因，勝者成倒。言三因者，一向倒故、推度性故、妄增益故。謂戒禁取非一向倒，緣少淨故。斷見邪見非妄增益，無門轉故。所餘煩惱不能推度，非見性故。由具三因，勝者成倒，是故餘惑非顛倒體。若爾，何故契經中言：於無常計常，有想心見倒。於苦、不淨、無我亦然。理實應知唯見是倒，想心隨見亦立倒名，與見相應行相同故。若爾，何故不說受等？彼於世間不極成故。謂心想倒世間極成，受等不然，故經不說。如是諸倒預流已斷，見及相應見所斷故。有餘部說：倒有十二，謂於無常計常倒中有想、心、見三種顛倒，乃至於無我計我倒亦爾。於中八唯見斷。四通見修斷，謂樂淨想心。若謂不然，未離欲聖離樂淨想，寧起欲貪？毘婆沙師不許此義。若有樂淨想心現行，便許聖者有樂淨倒；聖者亦起有情想心，是則亦應許有我倒。非於女等及於自身離有情想心有起欲貪故。由契經說：若有多聞諸聖弟子，於苦聖諦如實見知，乃至爾時彼聖弟子無常計常想心見倒皆已永斷，乃至廣說。故知想心唯取見倒相應力起是倒非餘。然聖有時暫迷亂故，率爾於境欲貪現前。如於旋火輪畫藥叉迷亂。若爾，何故尊者慶喜告彼尊者辯自在言：

The treatise says: The substance of the four perversions is established from three views. That is, among the views of extremes, only the view of permanence is taken as the perversion of permanence; among the view-grasping, what takes pleasure and purity is taken as the perversions of pleasure and purity; among the view of a real self, only the view of self is taken as the perversion of self. Some say that the perversion of self includes the whole view of body. How does the perversion of self include the view of what belongs to self? And how does it not include it? Because it is entangled with perversion. Those who hold a self and have power over their own affairs have the view of what belongs to self. This is the view of self operating through two doors: it is I, and it belongs to me. If these were separate views, then the view would also be different because of holding "I" as I. Why are the other afflictions not the substance of perversion? Only what has three causes is superior and becomes perversion. The three causes are: because it is wholly perverted, because it speculates, and because it falsely exaggerates. That is, grasping of rules and rituals is not wholly perverted, because it takes some purity as object. The view of annihilation and wrong view do not falsely exaggerate, because they have no door of operation. The other afflictions cannot speculate, because they are not of the nature of views. Because it has all three causes, what is superior becomes perversion, and so the other afflictions are not the substance of perversion. If so, why does the sutra say: In holding the impermanent to be permanent, there is the perversion of conception, mind and view? And it is the same for suffering, impurity and non-self. In truth one should know that only view is perversion, and conception and mind following view are also called perversion, because they are the same in mode as what is associated with view. If so, why not speak of feeling and the like? Because those are not fully established in the world. That is, the perversion of mind and conception is established in the world, but feeling and the like are not, and so the sutra does not mention them. These perversions are cut off by a stream-enterer, because view and what is associated with view are abandoned by seeing. Some other schools say: There are twelve perversions, that is, in the perversion of holding the impermanent to be permanent, there are three perversions of conception, mind and view, and so on up to the perversion of holding non-self to be self. Among these, eight are abandoned only by seeing, and four are abandoned by both seeing and cultivation, namely the conceptions and minds of pleasure and purity. If one says it is not so, then noble ones who have not yet become free from desire have left behind the conceptions and minds of pleasure and purity, so how could they give rise to desire-greed? The Vaibhasika masters do not accept this meaning. If there were active conceptions and minds of pleasure and purity, one would allow that noble ones have the perversion of pleasure and purity; noble ones also give rise to the conception and mind of a sentient being, and so one should also allow a perversion of self. It is not that, with regard to women and the like and one's own body, they can be free from the conception and mind of a sentient being and still give rise to desire-greed. As the sutra says: If there are noble disciples of great learning who truthfully see and know the noble truth of suffering, up to that time the perversions of conception, mind and view that hold the impermanent to be permanent have all been cut off forever, and so on in detail. Therefore one knows that conception and mind arise only by taking the power of what is associated with the view of perversion and are perversions, not other things. However, noble ones sometimes briefly become confused, and so desire-greed suddenly appears toward objects, just as one is confused about a whirling firebrand wheel or a painted yaksha. If so, why did Venerable Ananda say to Venerable Svatantra:

由有想亂倒，故汝心燋熱，

Because of perverted confusion in conception, your mind is scorched and hot;

遠離彼想已，貪息心便淨。

once you leave that conception far behind, greed ceases and your mind becomes pure.

故有餘師復作是說：八想心倒，學未全斷。如是八種，纏由如實見知聖諦方得永斷，離此無餘永斷方便，故此所說不違彼經。為唯見隨眠有多差別、為餘亦有？慢亦有。云何？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) Therefore some other masters say further: The eight perversions of conception and mind are not entirely cut off by those still in training. These eight kinds of entanglement are cut off forever only by truthfully seeing and knowing the noble truths; apart from this there is no other means of cutting them off forever, and so what is said here does not contradict that sutra. Do only the latent tendency of views have many distinctions, or do the others also? Pride has them too. How? A verse says:

慢七九從三，皆通見脩斷，

Pride is of seven kinds and nine, from three, all abandoned by both seeing and cultivation;

聖如殺纏等，有脩斷不行。

noble ones, like entanglements of killing and the like, have those abandoned by cultivation, but they do not act.

論曰：且慢隨眠差別有七，一慢、二過慢、三慢過慢、四我慢、五增上慢、六卑慢、七邪慢。令心高舉總立慢名，行轉不同故分七種。於劣於等如其次第謂己為勝、謂己為等，令心高舉總說為慢。於等於勝如其次第謂勝謂等總名過慢。於勝謂勝名慢過慢。於五取蘊執我我，所令心高舉名為我慢。於未證得殊勝德中謂已證得名增上慢。於多分勝謂己少劣名為卑慢。於無德中謂己有德名為邪慢。然本論說慢類有九：一我勝慢類、二我等慢類、三我劣慢類、四有勝我慢類、五有等我慢類、六有劣我慢類、七無勝我慢類、八無等我慢類、九無劣我慢類。如是九種，從前七慢三中離出。從三者何？謂從前慢、過慢、卑慢如是三慢，若依見生行次有殊成三三類。初三如次，即過慢、慢、卑慢。中三如次，即卑慢、慢、過慢。後三如次，即慢、過慢、卑慢。於多分勝謂己少劣，卑慢可成，有高處故。無劣我慢高處是何？謂於如是自所愛樂勝有情聚，雖於己身知極下劣而自尊重。如是且依《發智論》釋。依《品類足》釋慢類者，且我勝慢從三慢出，謂慢、過慢、慢過慢三。由觀劣等勝境別故。如是七慢何所斷耶？一切皆通見修所斷。諸脩所斷，聖未斷時為可現行？此不決定，謂有脩所斷而聖定不行，如殺生纏是脩所斷，而諸聖者必不現行。殺生纏者，顯由此惑發起故思斷眾生命。等言為顯盜、婬、誑纏，無有愛全、有愛一分。無有名何法？謂三界無常，於此貪求，名無有愛。有愛一分，謂願當為藹羅筏拏大龍王等。此諸纏愛一切皆緣脩所斷故，唯脩所斷。已說慢類等，有是脩所斷，何緣聖者未斷不起？頌曰：

The Treatise says: First, the kinds of the latent affliction of pride are seven: first, pride; second, excessive pride; third, pride beyond pride; fourth, the pride of "I am"; fifth, overweening pride; sixth, lowly pride; seventh, wrong pride. That which makes the mind lofty is generally called pride, and it is divided into seven kinds because its modes of operation differ. Toward inferiors and equals, in order, thinking oneself superior or thinking oneself equal, making the mind lofty, is generally called pride. Toward equals and superiors, in order, thinking oneself superior or equal, is generally called excessive pride. Toward superiors, thinking oneself superior, is called pride beyond pride. Clinging to a self and what belongs to a self in the five aggregates of grasping, making the mind lofty, is called the pride of "I am." Thinking one has attained an excellent virtue that one has not yet attained is called overweening pride. Toward those who are in many respects superior, thinking oneself only slightly inferior, is called lowly pride. Thinking oneself to have virtue where one has none is called wrong pride. However, the root treatise says that there are nine kinds of pride: first, the pride "I am superior"; second, the pride "I am equal"; third, the pride "I am inferior"; fourth, the pride "I am less than one who is superior"; fifth, the pride "I am less than one who is equal"; sixth, the pride "I am less than one who is inferior"; seventh, the pride "no one is superior to me"; eighth, the pride "no one is equal to me"; ninth, the pride "no one is inferior to me." These nine kinds are separated out from three of the preceding seven prides. Which three? Namely, from the earlier pride, excessive pride, and lowly pride; depending on the order in which the view arises, the differences make three groups of three. The first three are, in order, excessive pride, pride, and lowly pride. The middle three are, in order, lowly pride, pride, and excessive pride. The last three are, in order, pride, excessive pride, and lowly pride. Toward those who are in many respects superior, thinking oneself only slightly inferior can make lowly pride, since there is a lofty point. What is the lofty point in "no one is inferior to me"? Namely, toward such a group of superior sentient beings whom one loves and delights in, although one knows oneself to be extremely low, one still holds oneself in esteem. This is explained according to the Jnanaprasthana. Explaining the kinds of pride according to the Prakaranapada, the pride "I am superior" comes from three prides, namely pride, excessive pride, and pride beyond pride, because of looking at inferior, equal, and superior objects separately. By which path are these seven prides abandoned? All of them are abandoned by both seeing and cultivation. As for those abandoned by cultivation, can they become active before a noble one has abandoned them? This is not fixed: there are things abandoned by cultivation that a noble one surely does not act upon, such as the binding of killing, which is abandoned by cultivation, yet noble ones surely do not act on it. The binding of killing shows that, by the arising of this affliction, one deliberately cuts off the lives of beings. The word "and so on" shows the bindings of stealing, sexual conduct, and lying, the entire craving for non-existence, and a portion of the craving for existence. What is called craving for non-existence? Namely, in the impermanence of the three realms, greedily seeking in it is called craving for non-existence. A portion of the craving for existence means wishing to become the great dragon king Airavana (Indra's white elephant) and so on. All these bindings and cravings take as their objects what is abandoned by cultivation, and so they are abandoned only by cultivation. Having explained the kinds of pride and so on, since some are abandoned by cultivation, why do noble ones who have not yet abandoned them not give rise to them? The verse says:

慢類等我慢，惡作中不善，

The kinds of pride and so on, the pride of "I am," regret, and the unwholesome,

聖有而不起，見疑所增故。

noble ones have but do not give rise to, because views and doubt increase them.

論曰：等言為顯殺等諸纏，無有愛全、有愛一分。此慢類等我慢惡悔，是見及疑親所增長。雖脩所斷，而由見疑背已折故，聖不能起。謂慢類我慢有身見所增，殺生等纏邪見所增，諸無有愛斷見所增，有愛一分常見所增，不善惡作是疑所增，故聖身中皆定不起。九十八隨眠中，幾是遍行、幾非遍行？頌曰：

The Treatise says: The word "and so on" shows the bindings of killing and the rest, the entire craving for non-existence, and a portion of the craving for existence. These kinds of pride and so on, the pride of "I am," and regret are those intimately increased by views and doubt. Although they are abandoned by cultivation, because their backing, views and doubt, has been broken, noble ones cannot give rise to them. That is, the pride of "I am" among the kinds of pride is increased by the view of self; the bindings of killing and the rest are increased by wrong view; the cravings for non-existence are increased by the view of annihilation; a portion of the craving for existence is increased by the view of permanence; unwholesome regret is increased by doubt; therefore in the person of a noble one, they surely do not arise. Among the ninety-eight latent afflictions, how many are pervasive and how many are not? The verse says:

見苦集所斷，諸見疑相應，

Those abandoned by seeing suffering and its origin, the views and doubts,

及不共無明，遍行自界地，

and the associated, and the unshared ignorance, are pervasive in their own realm and plane;

於中除二見，餘九能上緣，

of these, excluding two views, the other nine can take higher objects,

除得餘隨行，亦是遍行攝。

and apart from possession, the other accompanying factors are also included as pervasive.

論曰：唯見苦集所斷見疑，及彼相應不共無明，力能遍行自界地五部故，此十一皆得遍行名，謂七見、二疑、二無明十一。如是十一，於自界地五部諸法遍緣，隨眠為因遍生五部染法。依此三義立遍行名。此中所言遍緣五部，為約漸次、為約頓緣？若漸次緣，餘亦應遍。若頓緣者，誰復普於欲界諸法頓計為勝能得清淨或世間因？不說頓緣自界地一切，然說有力能頓緣五部。雖爾，遍行亦非唯此，以於是處有我見行，是處必應起我愛慢。若於是處淨勝見行，是處必應希求高舉，是則愛慢應亦遍行。若爾，頓緣見脩斷故，應言此二何所斷耶？應言脩所斷，雜緣境故。或應見所斷，見力引故。毘婆沙師作如是說：此二煩惱自相非共，無頓緣力，故非遍行。是故遍行唯此十一，餘非，准此不說自成。於十一中除身邊見，所餘九種亦能上緣。上言正明上界上地，兼顯無有緣下隨眠。此九雖能通緣自上，然理無有自上頓緣。於緣上中且約界說，或唯緣一或二合緣。故本論言：有諸隨眠是欲界繫、緣色界繫，有諸隨眠是欲界繫、緣無色界繫，有諸隨眠是欲界繫、緣色無色界繫，有諸隨眠是色界繫、緣無色界繫。約地分別，準界應思。生在欲界，若緣大梵起有情見或起常見，如何身邊見不緣上界地？不執彼為我我所故、邊見必由身見起故。若爾，計彼為有情常，是何見攝？對法者言：此二非見，是邪智攝。何緣所餘緣彼是見，此亦緣彼而非見耶？以宗為量，故作是說。為遍行體唯是隨眠？不爾。云何？並隨行法。謂上所說十一隨眠並彼隨行皆遍行攝，然除彼得，非一果故。由此故有作是問言：諸遍行隨眠，皆遍行因不？答言：於此應作四句。第一句者，謂未來世遍行隨眠。第二句者，謂過現世彼俱有法。第三第四如理應辯。九十八隨眠中，幾緣有漏、幾緣無漏？頌曰：

The Treatise says: Only the views and doubts abandoned by seeing suffering and its origin, together with the unshared ignorance associated with them, have the power to pervade the five groups of their own realm and plane, and so these eleven are all called pervasive, namely seven views, two doubts, and two ignorances, eleven in all. These eleven pervasively take as objects all dharmas of the five groups of their own realm and plane, and the latent afflictions, as causes, pervasively give rise to defiled dharmas of the five groups. The name pervasive is established on these three meanings. As for the pervasive taking of the five groups spoken of here, is it taken gradually or all at once? If gradually, the other afflictions would also be pervasive. If all at once, who would in one sweep reckon all dharmas of the desire realm as excellent and able to bring purity or be the cause of the world? It is not said that they take all of their own realm and plane at once, but that they have the power to take the five groups at once. Even so, the pervasive ones are not only these, since wherever the view of self acts, craving and pride of self must also arise; and wherever the view of purity and excellence acts, the seeking of loftiness must also arise there, so craving and pride would also be pervasive. If so, because they take as objects what is abandoned by seeing and by cultivation at once, by which should these two be abandoned? They should be said to be abandoned by cultivation, because their objects are mixed. Or they should be abandoned by seeing, because they are drawn forth by the power of views. The Vaibhashika masters say thus: These two afflictions, in their own characteristic, are not shared, and have no power to take all at once, so they are not pervasive. Therefore the pervasive ones are only these eleven, and the others are not, which follows by implication and is not stated. Among the eleven, excluding the views of self and extremes, the other nine can also take higher objects. The word "higher" properly refers to higher realms and higher planes, and also shows that there are none that take lower latent afflictions as objects. Although these nine can take objects of their own and higher planes, in principle none takes its own and the higher all at once. In taking the higher, taking by realm, they take only one or two together. Therefore the root treatise says: There are latent afflictions belonging to the desire realm that take objects of the form realm; there are latent afflictions belonging to the desire realm that take objects of the formless realm; there are latent afflictions belonging to the desire realm that take objects of both the form and formless realms; there are latent afflictions belonging to the form realm that take objects of the formless realm. Distinguished by plane, this should be considered by analogy with the realms. A person born in the desire realm, if he takes Great Brahma as his object and gives rise to the view of a sentient being or the view of permanence, how is it that the view of self and the view of extremes do not take the higher realm and planes as objects? Because he does not grasp that as a self or what belongs to a self, and because the view of extremes must arise from the view of self. If so, to reckon that one as a permanent sentient being, by which view is it included? The Abhidharma masters say: These two are not views but are included in wrong knowledge. Why are the others, which take that as their object, views, while this one also takes that object but is not a view? It is by taking the tenet as the standard that this is said. Is the essence of the pervasive only the latent afflictions? Not so. How then? Also the accompanying dharmas. That is, the eleven latent afflictions spoken of above together with their accompanying dharmas are all included in the pervasive, except that possession is excluded, because it is not of one result. Hence someone asked: Are all the pervasive latent afflictions causes of the pervasive? The answer: Here four alternatives should be made. The first alternative is the pervasive latent afflictions of the future. The second is the dharmas coexisting with those in the past and present. The third and fourth should be analyzed according to the principle. Among the ninety-eight latent afflictions, how many take the conditioned as objects and how many take the unconditioned? The verse says:

見滅道所斷，邪見疑相應，

Those abandoned by seeing cessation and the path, wrong view and doubt, and the associated,

及不共無明，六能緣無漏。

and unshared ignorance, six can take the unconditioned as objects.

於中緣滅者，唯緣自地滅，

Of these, those that take cessation take only the cessation of their own plane,

緣道六九地，由別治相因。

those that take the path take six or nine planes, because of separate remedy and mutual causality.

貪瞋慢二取，並非無漏緣，

Greed, anger, pride, and the two graspings are not taken by the unconditioned,

應離境非怨，靜淨勝性故。

since one should separate from them, the object is not an enemy, and it is of a nature of stillness, purity, and excellence.

論曰：唯見滅道所斷邪見、疑，彼相應不共無明，各三成六，能緣無漏。餘緣有漏，准此自成。於此六中緣滅諦者，各以自地滅為所緣，滅互相望非因果故。謂欲界繫三種隨眠，唯緣欲界諸行擇滅。乃至有頂三種隨眠，唯緣有頂諸行擇滅。緣道諦者緣六九地，謂欲界繫三種隨眠，唯緣六地法智品道，若治欲界、若能治餘，皆彼所緣，以類同故。色無色界八地各有三種隨眠，一一唯能通緣九地類智品道，若治自地、若能治餘，皆彼所緣，以類同故。何故緣滅自地非餘？緣道便通六九同類，以諸地道互相因故。雖法類品亦互相因，而類智品不治欲界，故類智品道非欲三所緣。法智品既能治色無色，應為彼八地各三所緣。非此皆能治色無色，苦集法智品非彼對治故。亦非全能治色無色，不能治彼見所斷故。二初無故，非彼所緣。即由此因，顯遍行惑有緣苦集諸地無遮，境互為緣因，非能對治故。何緣貪瞋慢戒禁取見取，見無漏斷非無漏緣？以貪隨眠應捨離故，若緣無漏便非過失，如善法欲不應捨離。緣怨害事起瞋隨眠，滅道非怨故非瞋境。緣麁動事起慢隨眠，滅道寂靜故非慢境。於非淨法執為淨因名戒禁取，滅道真淨，故不應為戒禁取境。於非勝法執為最勝名為見取，滅道真勝，故亦不應為見取境。是故貪等不緣無漏。九十八隨眠中，幾由所緣故隨增、幾由相應故隨增？頌曰：

The Treatise says: Only the wrong view and doubt abandoned by seeing cessation and the path, the unshared ignorance associated with them, each of three, make six, which can take the unconditioned as objects. That the others take the conditioned follows from this. Among these six, those that take the truth of cessation each take the cessation of their own plane as their object, because the cessations of different planes are not related as cause and effect among themselves. That is, the three latent afflictions belonging to the desire realm take only the cessation by discernment of the formations of the desire realm. And so on up to the Peak of Existence, where the three latent afflictions take only the cessation by discernment of the formations of the Peak of Existence. Those that take the truth of the path take six or nine planes. That is, the three latent afflictions belonging to the desire realm take only the path of the Dharma-knowledge class of the six planes, whether it counters the desire realm or can counter the others, all being their objects because of sameness of kind. Each of the three latent afflictions in each of the eight planes of the form and formless realms can take the path of the subsequent-knowledge class of all nine planes, whether it counters their own plane or can counter others, all being their objects because of sameness of kind. Why do those that take cessation take only their own plane and not others? Because those that take the path may take the six or nine planes of the same kind, since the paths of the various planes are mutually causes. Although the Dharma class and the subsequent class are also mutually causes, the subsequent-knowledge class does not counter the desire realm, so the path of subsequent knowledge is not the object of the three of the desire realm. The Dharma-knowledge class can counter the form and formless realms, and so should be the object of the three in each of those eight planes. Not all of these can counter the form and formless realms, because the Dharma knowledge of suffering and origin is not the remedy for those; nor can it fully counter the form and formless, since it cannot counter what they abandon by seeing. The two are not there at first, and so they are not their objects. By this very cause, it is shown that the pervasive afflictions have no obstacle to taking as objects the suffering and origin of the various planes, since the objects are mutually causes and are not remedies. Why are greed, anger, pride, clinging to rules and rituals, and clinging to views, which are abandoned by seeing, not taking the unconditioned as objects? Because the latent affliction of greed should be abandoned and renounced; if it took the unconditioned there would be no fault, as the wish for wholesome dharmas should not be abandoned. Anger arises toward objects that are enemies and harmful, and cessation and the path are not enemies, so they are not objects of anger. Pride arises toward coarse and agitated things, and cessation and the path are quiet, so they are not objects of pride. Grasping as a cause of purity what is not pure is called clinging to rules and rituals, but cessation and the path are truly pure, so they should not be objects of clinging to rules and rituals. Grasping as supreme what is not supreme is called clinging to views, but cessation and the path are truly supreme, so they should not be objects of clinging to views. Therefore greed and the rest do not take the unconditioned. Among the ninety-eight latent afflictions, how many increase through their objects and how many increase through association? The verse says:

未斷遍隨眠，於自地一切，

The pervasive latent afflictions not yet abandoned, toward everything in their own plane,

非遍於自部，所緣故隨增，

the non-pervasive only in their own group, increase through their objects,

非無漏上緣，無攝有違故，

not toward the unconditioned or higher objects, because there is no inclusion and there is opposition,

隨於相應法，相應故隨增。

and toward associated dharmas they increase through association.

論曰：遍行隨眠普於自地五部諸法所緣隨增，以能遍緣自地法故。所餘五部非遍隨眠，所緣隨增唯於自部，唯以自部為所緣故。此據總說。別分別者，六無漏緣、九上緣惑，於所緣境無隨增義。所以者何？無漏上境非所攝受及相違故。謂若有法為此地中身見及愛攝為己有，可有為此身見愛地中所有隨眠所緣隨增理，如衣潤濕埃塵隨住。非諸無漏及上地法，為諸下身見愛攝為己有，故緣彼下惑，非所緣隨增。住下地心求上地等，是善法欲，非謂隨眠。聖道涅槃及上地法與能緣彼下惑相違故，彼二亦無所緣隨增理，如於炎石足不隨住。有說：隨眠是隨順義，非無漏上境，順諸下隨眠，故雖是所緣而無隨增理。如風病者服乾澁藥，病者於藥非所隨增。已約所緣辯隨增義。今次應辯相應隨增。謂隨何隨眠於自相應法，由相應故於彼隨增。諸說隨增，謂至未斷，故初頌首標未斷言。頗有隨眠不緣無漏、不緣上界，而彼隨增但於相應非所緣不？有，謂緣上地諸遍行隨眠。九十八隨眠中，幾不善、幾無記？頌曰：

The Treatise says: The pervasive latent afflictions increase through their objects across all dharmas of the five groups of their own plane, because they can pervasively take the dharmas of their own plane as objects. The other, non-pervasive latent afflictions increase through their objects only in their own group, because they take only their own group as their object. This is the general statement. Distinguished in particular, the afflictions that take the six unconditioned objects and the nine higher objects have no meaning of increase through objects toward those objects. Why? Because unconditioned and higher objects are not appropriated by them, and because they are opposed. That is, if there is a dharma that the view of self and craving in this plane appropriate as their own, then there can be the principle of the latent afflictions in the plane of this view of self and craving increasing through their objects, like dust that stays on a garment that is moist. The unconditioned and higher-plane dharmas are not appropriated as their own by the lower view of self and craving, and so the lower afflictions that take them do not increase through their objects. When a mind in a lower plane seeks a higher plane and so on, that is the wish for wholesome dharmas and not a latent affliction. The noble path, nirvana, and higher-plane dharmas are opposed to the lower afflictions that take them, and so for those two as well there is no principle of increase through objects, as a foot does not stay on a hot stone. Some say: The latent afflictions have the meaning of following along; the unconditioned and higher objects do not accord with lower latent afflictions, and so although they are objects there is no principle of increase. Like a person with a wind disease taking a dry and astringent medicine, the patient does not increase in connection with the medicine. Having explained increase through objects, next we should explain increase through association. That is, whatever latent affliction increases toward its own associated dharmas does so because of association. All talk of increase refers to what is not yet abandoned, so the first verse begins with the word "not yet abandoned." Is there a latent affliction that neither takes the unconditioned nor takes higher realms, and whose increase is only toward associated dharmas and not toward objects? There is: namely, the pervasive latent afflictions that take higher planes. Among the ninety-eight latent afflictions, how many are unwholesome and how many are neutral? The verse says:

上二界隨眠，及欲身邊見，

The latent afflictions of the upper two realms, and the views of self and extremes of the desire realm,

彼俱痴無記，此餘皆不善。

with their coexisting ignorance, are neutral; all the others are unwholesome.

論曰：色無色界一切隨眠唯無記性，以染汙法若是不善有苦異熟，苦異熟果上二界無，他逼惱因彼定無故。身邊二見及相應痴，欲界繫者亦無記性。所以者何？此與施等不相違故，為我當樂現在勤脩施戒等故。執斷邊見能順解脫，故世尊說：於諸外道諸見趣中此見最勝，謂我不有、我所亦不有。我當不有、我所當不有。又此二見迷自事故、非欲逼害他有情故。若爾，貪求天上快樂及起我慢，例亦應然。先軌範師作如是說：俱生身見是無記性，如禽獸等身見現行。若分別生是不善性。餘欲界繫一切隨眠，與上相違皆不善性。於上所說不善惑中，幾是不善根、幾非不善根？頌曰：

The Treatise says: All latent afflictions of the form and formless realms are only of neutral nature, because if a defiled dharma were unwholesome it would have a painful ripened result, and the upper two realms have no painful ripened result, since there is certainly no cause there of oppression of others. The two views of self and extremes and the ignorance associated with them, if belonging to the desire realm, are also of neutral nature. Why? Because these do not contradict giving and so on, since one diligently practices giving and morality now in order to be happy in future. The view of extremes that clings to annihilation can accord with liberation, and so the World-Honored One said: Among the views and tendencies of the non-Buddhists, this view is the best, namely: I do not exist, and what is mine does not exist; I will not exist, and what will be mine will not exist. Also, these two views are deluded about one's own affairs and do not desire to oppress or harm other sentient beings. If so, greed for heavenly happiness and giving rise to the pride of "I am" would likewise be so by analogy. The earlier teachers said thus: The innate view of self is of neutral nature, as in the active view of self in birds and beasts. If it is born of discrimination, it is of unwholesome nature. All other latent afflictions belonging to the desire realm, in contrast to the above, are of unwholesome nature. Among the unwholesome afflictions spoken of above, how many are roots of the unwholesome and how many are not? The verse says:

不善根欲界，貪瞋不善痴。

The roots of the unwholesome in the desire realm are greed, anger, and unwholesome delusion.

論曰：唯欲界繫一切貪瞋及不善痴不善根攝。如其次第，世尊說為貪瞋痴三不善根。性唯不善煩惱，為不善法根立不善根。餘則不爾，所餘煩惱非不善根，義準已成，故頌不說。於上所說無記惑中，幾是無記根、幾非無記根？頌曰：

The Treatise says: Only all the greed and anger belonging to the desire realm and the unwholesome delusion are included in the roots of the unwholesome. In order, the World-Honored One called them the three unwholesome roots of greed, anger, and delusion. Afflictions whose nature is only unwholesome become the root of unwholesome dharmas and are established as unwholesome roots. The others are not so; the other afflictions are not roots of the unwholesome, and since this follows by implication, the verse does not mention it. Among the neutral afflictions spoken of above, how many are neutral roots and how many are not? The verse says:

無記根有三，無記愛痴慧，

There are three neutral roots, neutral craving, delusion, and wisdom,

非餘二高故，外方立四種，

not the other two, because of loftiness; outside teachers establish four kinds,

中愛見慢痴，三定皆痴故。

in the middle craving, views, pride, and delusion, because the three concentrations are all delusion.

論曰：迦濕彌羅國諸毘婆沙師說無記根亦有三種，謂諸無記愛、痴、慧三，下至異熟生亦無記根攝。何緣疑、慢非無記根？疑二趣轉，慢高轉故。彼師謂疑二趣相轉，性動搖故，不應立根。慢於所緣高舉相轉，異根法故，亦不立根。為根必應堅住下轉，世間共了，故彼非根。外方諸師立此有四，謂諸無記愛、見、慢、痴。無記名中遮善惡故，何緣此四立無記根？以諸愚夫脩上定者，不過依託愛見慢三，此三皆依無明力轉，故立此四為無記根。諸契經中說十四無記事，彼亦是此無記攝耶？不爾。云何？彼經但約應捨置問立無記名，謂問記門總有四種。何等為四？頌曰：

The Treatise says: The Vaibhashika masters of Kashmir say that there are also three neutral roots, namely neutral craving, delusion, and wisdom; down to the ripened result, they are also included in the neutral roots. Why are doubt and pride not neutral roots? Because doubt turns toward two paths and pride turns toward loftiness. Those masters say that doubt operates as wavering between two paths and is of an unstable nature, so it should not be established as a root; pride operates by raising itself above its object and is a dharma unlike a root, so it too is not established as a root. A root must be firm and abiding and turn downward, which the world knows in common, so those are not roots. The teachers outside establish four of these, namely neutral craving, views, pride, and delusion. Among the neutral, wholesome and evil are excluded, so why are these four established as neutral roots? Because when ordinary fools cultivate higher concentrations, they do not go beyond relying on the three of craving, views, and pride, and these three all turn by the power of ignorance, and so these four are established as neutral roots. The sutras speak of fourteen unanswered matters; are they also included in this neutrality? Not so. How then? Those sutras establish the name "neutral" only in terms of questions that should be set aside. The ways of answering a question are in total four kinds. What are the four? The verse says:

應一向分別，反詰捨置記，

Answering definitively, analytically, by counter-question, or by setting aside,

如死生殊勝，我蘊一異等。

as in death and birth, the superior, self and aggregates being one or different, and so on.

論曰：且問四者，一應一向記、二應分別記、三應反詰記、四應捨置記。此四如次。如有問者，問死生勝我一異等。記有四者，謂答四問。若作是問：一切有情皆當死不？應一向記一切有情皆定當死。若作是問：一切死者皆當生不？應分別記：有煩惱者當生非餘。若作是問：人為勝劣？應反詰記：為何所方？若言方天，應記人劣；若言方下，應記人勝。若作是問：蘊與有情為一為異？應捨置記：有情無實故，一異性不成，如石女兒白黑等性。如何捨置而立記名？以記彼問言，此不應記故。有作是說：彼第二問，亦應一向記，非一切當生。然問者言：一切死者皆當生不？理應分別記彼所問總答不成，雖令總知仍未解故。又作是說：彼第三問亦應一向記，人亦勝亦劣，所待異故，如識果因。然彼問者一向為問，非一向記故，應成分別記。但此應詰問意所方，故此名為應反詰記。又作是說：彼第四問既全不記蘊與有情若異若一，云何名記？然彼所問，理應捨置。記言應捨置，如何不名記？對法諸師作如是說：一向記者，若有問言：世尊是如來、應、正等覺耶？所說法要是善說耶？諸弟子眾行妙行耶？色乃至識皆無常耶？苦乃至道善施設耶？應一向記，契實義故。分別記者，若有直心請言：願尊為我說法。應為分別：法有眾多，謂去來今，欲說何者？若言為我說過去法。應復分別：過去法中亦有眾多，色乃至識。若請說色，應分別言：色中有三，善、惡、無記。若請說善，應分別言：善中有七，謂離殺生，廣說乃至離雜穢語。若彼復請說離殺生，應分別言：此有三種，謂無貪、瞋、痴三善根所發。若彼請說無貪發者，應分別言：此復有二，謂表、無表，欲說何者？反詰記者，若有諂心請言：願尊為我說法。應反詰彼：法有眾多，欲說何者？不應分別。乃至令彼默然而住，或令自記無便求非。

The Treatise says: First, the four questions: first, one should answer definitively; second, one should answer analytically; third, one should answer with a counter-question; fourth, one should set aside. These four correspond in order. For example, when asked about death and birth, superiority, and whether self and aggregates are one or different, there are four answers, answering the four questions. If asked: Will all sentient beings die? One should answer definitively that all sentient beings will surely die. If asked: Will all who die be reborn? One should answer analytically: Those with afflictions will be reborn, not others. If asked: Are humans superior or inferior? One should answer with a counter-question: Compared with what? If compared with the gods, one should answer that humans are inferior; if compared with the lower realms, one should answer that humans are superior. If asked: Are the aggregates and the sentient being one or different? One should set aside, because a sentient being has no reality, and so oneness or difference is not established, like the whiteness or blackness of the child of a barren woman. How can one set aside and yet establish the name "answer"? Because to answer that question and say something is not proper to answer. Some say: The second question too should be answered definitively, since it is not that all will be born. But the questioner asks: Will all who die be reborn? In principle one should answer analytically, because a general answer to what he asks is not valid, and even if it made him know in general, he would still not understand. Some also say: The third question too should be answered definitively, since humans are both superior and inferior depending on what they are compared to, like consciousness as cause and effect. But that questioner asks purely, and it is not a pure answer, so it becomes an analytical answer. But here one should question the direction of his intention, and so this is called the answer with a counter-question. Some also say: As for the fourth question, since one does not answer at all whether the aggregates and the sentient being are different or one, how is it called an answer? But what he asks should in principle be set aside. If "answer" means setting aside, why is it not called an answer? The Abhidharma masters say thus: A definitive answer, as when someone asks: Is the World-Honored One the Tathagata, an arhat, a perfectly enlightened one? Is the Dharma taught well taught? Do the disciples practice well? Are form up to consciousness all impermanent? Are suffering up to the path well established? One should answer definitively, since it accords with the true meaning. An analytical answer, as when someone with an upright mind requests: May the Venerable explain the Dharma for me. One should analyze: The Dharma is manifold, namely past, future, and present; which do you wish to hear? If he says: Please explain the past Dharma for me. One should further analyze: Within past Dharma there are many too, form up to consciousness. If he asks for form, one should analyze: Within form there are three, wholesome, evil, and neutral. If he asks for the wholesome, one should analyze: Within the wholesome there are seven, namely abstaining from killing, and so on at length up to abstaining from frivolous speech. If he again asks to speak of abstaining from killing, one should analyze: This has three kinds, namely arising from the three wholesome roots of non-greed, non-anger, and non-delusion. If he asks to speak of that arising from non-greed, one should analyze: This again has two, namely manifest and unmanifest; which do you wish to hear? An answer with a counter-question, as when someone with a flattering mind requests: May the Venerable explain the Dharma for me. One should counter-question him: The Dharma is manifold, which do you wish to hear? One should not analyze, even up to making him remain silent, or making him declare himself, so that there is no opening for him to seek fault.

豈不二中都無有問，唯有請說，亦無有記唯反詰言欲說何者，如何此二成問記耶？如有請言為我說道，豈非問道？即由反詰記彼所問，豈非記道？若爾，應俱是反詰記。不爾，問意直諂有殊，記有分別無分別故。捨置記者，若有問言：世為有邊、為無邊等？此應捨置不應為說。今依契經辯問記相。如大眾部契經中言：苾芻當知，問記有四。何等為四？謂或有問應一向記，乃至有問但應捨置。云何有問應一向記？謂問：諸行皆無常耶？此問名為應一向記。云何有問應分別記？謂若有問：諸有故思造作業已為受何果？此問名為應分別記。云何有問應反詰記？謂若有問：士夫想與我為一為異耶？應反詰言：汝依何我作如是問？若言依麁我，應記與想異。此問名為應反詰記。云何有問但應捨置？謂若有問：世為常、無常、亦常亦無常、非常非無常？世為有邊、無邊、亦有邊亦無邊、非有邊非無邊？如來死後為有、非有、亦有亦非有、非有非非有？為命者即身、為命者異身。此問名為但應捨置。

(The Treatise continues:) Is it not so that in the second and third there is no question at all, only a request to speak, and no answer, only a counter-question saying "which do you wish to hear"? How then do these two count as question and answer? For example, a request such as "explain the path for me," is it not a question about the path? And it is exactly by counter-questioning that one answers what he asks, is it not an answer about the path? If so, both should be answers with a counter-question. Not so: the question differs as to whether the intent is upright or flattering, and the answer differs as to whether it analyzes or does not. An answer by setting aside: if someone asks: Is the world finite or infinite, and so on? This should be set aside and not explained. Now, according to the sutras, let us explain the characteristics of questions and answers. As in the sutra of the Mahasamghika school it says: Bhikshus, know that there are four kinds of questions and answers. What are the four? Namely, there are questions that should be answered definitively, and so on up to questions that should only be set aside. How is there a question that should be answered definitively? When asked: Are all formations impermanent? This question is called one that should be answered definitively. How is there a question that should be answered analytically? If someone asks: Having deliberately created karma, what result will one receive? This question is called one that should be answered analytically. How is there a question that should be answered with a counter-question? If someone asks: Are the perception of a person and the self one or different? One should counter: Relying on which self do you ask this? If he says he relies on the coarse self, one should answer that it is different from perception. This question is called one that should be answered with a counter-question. How is there a question that should only be set aside? If someone asks: Is the world permanent, impermanent, both permanent and impermanent, neither permanent nor impermanent? Is the world finite, infinite, both finite and infinite, neither finite nor infinite? After death does the Tathagata exist, not exist, both exist and not exist, neither exist nor not exist? Is the one who has life the same as the body, or is the one who has life different from the body? This question is called one that should only be set aside.

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under imperial command

分別隨眠品第五之二

Chapter Five, Part Two: Analysis of the Latent Afflictions

諸有情類於此事中隨眠隨增，名繫此事。應說過去現在未來何等隨眠能繫何事？頌曰：

When latent afflictions increase in sentient beings with regard to a matter, it is called being bound to that matter. We should explain which latent afflictions of the past, present, and future can bind which matters. The verse says:

若於此事中，未斷貪瞋慢，

If in this matter greed, anger, and pride are not yet abandoned,

過現若已起，未來意遍行，

those of the past and present, if already arisen; those of the future, associated with mind, and pervasive,

五可生自世，不生亦遍行，

the five that can arise in their own time, and those that do not arise too, and the pervasive,

餘過未遍行，現正緣能繫。

the others of the past and future, and the pervasive; those taking the present as object can bind.

論曰：且諸隨眠總有二種：一者自相，謂貪、瞋、慢；二者共相，謂見、疑、痴。事雖有多，此說所繫。如應未斷，流至後門。若此事中有貪瞋慢，於過去世已生未斷，現在已生能繫此事。以貪瞋慢是自相惑，非諸有情定遍起故。若未來世意識相應貪瞋慢三遍於三世，乃至未斷皆能繫縛。未來五識相應貪瞋，若未斷可生，唯繫未來世。未來五識相應貪瞋，若未斷不生，亦能繫三世。所餘一切見疑無明，去來未斷遍縛三世。由此三種是共相惑，一切有情俱遍縛故。若現在世正緣境時，隨其所應能繫此事。應辯諸事過去未來，為實有無方可說繫。若實是有，則一切行恆時有故應說為常；若實是無，如何可說有能所繫及離繫耶？毘婆沙師定立實有，然彼諸行不名為常，由與有為諸相合故。為此所立決定增明，應略標宗顯其理趣。頌曰：

The Treatise says: First, the latent afflictions are of two kinds in total: first, the own-characteristic ones, namely greed, anger, and pride; second, the shared-characteristic ones, namely views, doubt, and delusion. Although there are many matters, this speaks of what binds. As for "not yet abandoned," it flows to the following gate. If in this matter there are greed, anger, and pride, those that have already arisen in the past and not yet been abandoned, and those that have already arisen in the present, can bind this matter. This is because greed, anger, and pride are own-characteristic afflictions, and sentient beings do not necessarily give rise to them pervasively. The greed, anger, and pride associated with the mind-consciousness in the future pervade the three times and, until abandoned, can all bind. The greed and anger associated with the five sense consciousnesses in the future, if not yet abandoned and able to arise, bind only the future; the greed and anger associated with the five sense consciousnesses in the future, if not yet abandoned and not arising, can also bind the three times. All the other views, doubt, and ignorance, past and future, if not yet abandoned, pervasively bind the three times, because these three are shared-characteristic afflictions that all sentient beings are pervasively bound by. When it is the present, as an object is being taken, they can bind this matter as is appropriate. We should analyze whether the past and future of the various matters are really existent or not before we can speak of binding. If they are really existent, then all formations exist at all times and should be said to be permanent; if they are really non-existent, how could one speak of what binds, what is bound, and release from bondage? The Vaibhashika masters definitely establish that they really exist, yet those formations are not called permanent, because they are joined with the marks of the conditioned. In order that what is established here becomes decisive and clear, we should briefly state the thesis and show its reasoning. The verse says:

三世有由說，二有境果故，

The three times exist because of what is said, and because of two, object and result,

說三世有故，許說一切有。

and because the three times are spoken of as existing, it is admitted to be the teaching that all exists.

論曰：三世實有。所以者何？由契經中世尊說故。謂世尊說：苾芻當知，若過去色非有，不應多聞聖弟子眾於過去色勤脩厭捨。以過去色是有故，應多聞聖弟子眾於過去色勤脩厭捨。若未來色非有，不應多聞聖弟子眾於未來色勤斷欣求。以未來色是有故，應多聞聖弟子眾於未來色勤斷欣求。又具二緣識方生故，謂契經說：識二緣生。其二者何？謂眼及色。廣說乃至意及諸法。若去來世非實有者，能緣彼識應闕二緣。已依聖教證去來有，當依正理證有去來，以識起時必有境故。謂必有境，識乃得生，無則不生，其理決定。若去來世境體實無，是則應有無所緣識，所緣無故識亦應無。又已謝業有當果故，謂若實無過去體者，善惡二業當果應無，非果生時有現因在。由此教理，毘婆沙師定立去來二世實有。若自謂是說一切有宗，決定應許實有去來世，以說三世皆定實有故，許是說一切有宗。謂若有人說三世實有，方許彼是說一切有宗。若人唯說有現在世及過去世未與果業，說無未來及過去世已與果業，彼可許為分別說部，非此部攝。今此部中差別有幾？誰所立世最善可依？頌曰：

The Treatise says: The three times really exist. Why? Because the World-Honored One said so in the sutras. The World-Honored One said: Bhikshus, know that if past form did not exist, the well-taught noble disciples should not diligently practice weariness and renunciation toward past form. Because past form exists, the well-taught noble disciples should diligently practice weariness and renunciation toward past form. If future form did not exist, the well-taught noble disciples should not diligently cut off longing toward future form. Because future form exists, the well-taught noble disciples should diligently cut off longing toward future form. Also, because consciousness arises only when two conditions are complete, the sutra says: Consciousness arises from two conditions. What are the two? Namely the eye and form, and so on at length up to the mind and dharmas. If the past and future did not really exist, the consciousness that takes them as objects would lack two conditions. Having established the existence of past and future by the holy teaching, we should now establish by correct reasoning that past and future exist, because when consciousness arises there must be an object. That is, only when there is an object can consciousness arise; without it, it does not arise, and this principle is decisive. If the essence of the past and future realms were really non-existent, then there would be consciousness without an object, and since the object does not exist, the consciousness should not exist either. Also, because past karma has a future result: if the past essence really did not exist, the future results of the two kinds of karma, wholesome and evil, would not exist, and it is not the case that a present cause exists at the time the result is born. By this teaching and reasoning, the Vaibhashika masters definitely establish that the past and future really exist. If one claims to be of the school that says all exists, one must admit that the past and future really exist, because it is by saying that the three times all definitely really exist that one is admitted as the school that says all exists. That is, if someone says the three times really exist, only then is he admitted to be of the school that says all exists. If someone says only that the present and the past karma that has not yet given its result exist, and that the future and the past karma that has already given its result do not exist, he may be admitted as of the Vibhajyavada school and not included in this school. How many differences are there within this school? Whose establishment of the times is the best and most reliable? The verse says:

此中有四種，類相位待異，

Among these there are four kinds: difference of kind, of mark, of state, and of relation;

第三約作用，立世最為善。

the third, by function, establishes the times most excellently.

論曰：尊者法救作如是說：由類不同，三世有異。彼謂諸法行於世時，由類有殊非體有異。如破金器作餘物時，形雖有殊而體無異。又如乳變成於酪時，捨味勢等，非捨顯色。如是諸法行於世時，從未來至現在、從現在入過去，唯捨得類，非捨得體。尊者妙音作如是說：由相不同，三世有異。彼謂諸法行於世時，過去正與過去相合，而不名為離現未相。未來正與未來相合，而不名為離過現相。現在正與現在相合，而不名為離過未相。如人正染一妻室時，於餘姬媵不名離染。尊者世友作如是說：由位不同，三世有異。彼謂諸法行於世時，至位位中作異異說，由位有別非體有異。如運一籌，置一名一、置百名百、置千名千。尊者覺天作如是說：由待有別，三世有異。彼謂諸法行於世時，前後相待立名有異，如一女人名母名女。此四種說一切有中，第一執法有轉變故，應置數論外道朋中。第二所立世相雜亂，三世皆有三世相故。人於妻室貪現行時，於餘境貪唯有成就。現無貪起，何義為同？第四所立前後相待，一世法中應有三世。謂過去世前後剎那應名去來，中為現在。未來現在類亦應然。故此四中第三最善，以約作用位有差別，由位不同立世有異。彼謂諸法作用未有名為未來，有作用時名為現在，作用已滅名為過去，非體有殊。此已具知。彼應復說，若去來世體亦實有，應名現在，何謂去來？豈不前言約作用立。若爾，現在有眼等根，彼同分攝有何作用？彼豈不能取果與果？是則過去同類因等既能與果，應有作用。有半作用，世相應雜。已略推徵，次當廣破。頌曰：

The Treatise says: The Venerable Dharmatrata says thus: The three times differ because of difference of kind. He holds that when dharmas pass through the times, they differ by mode of being, not in substance. Just as when a golden vessel is broken and made into something else, the shape differs but the substance does not differ. Or as milk, when changing into curd, gives up its taste and potency and so on but does not give up its color. In the same way, when dharmas pass through the times, from the future to the present and from the present into the past, they only give up one mode of being and not the substance. The Venerable Ghosaka says thus: The three times differ because of difference of mark. He holds that when dharmas pass through the times, the past is joined with the past mark, and yet is not called separated from the present and future marks; the future is joined with the future mark, and yet is not called separated from the past and present marks; the present is joined with the present mark, and yet is not called separated from the past and future marks. As when a man is attached to one wife, he is not called detached from the other consorts. The Venerable Vasumitra says thus: The three times differ because of difference of state. He holds that when dharmas pass through the times, in each state they are given a different designation, and this is by difference of state and not difference of substance. Like moving a single counting rod, placing it in the ones place makes it one, in the hundreds place makes it a hundred, in the thousands place makes it a thousand. The Venerable Buddhadeva says thus: The three times differ because of difference of relation. He holds that when dharmas pass through the times, names differ according to what is earlier and later in relation to each other, as one woman is called a mother and also a daughter. Among these four views in the school that says all exists, the first holds that dharmas have transformation, and so it should be placed among the camp of the Samkhya non-Buddhists. In the second, the marks of the times that are established are mixed up, since all three times have the marks of the three times. When a person's greed for his wife is active, with respect to other objects his greed only remains as possession. Since no greed is arisen in the present, in what sense is it the same? In the fourth, the establishment is by earlier and later relation, so within a single time there should be three times. That is, the earlier and later moments of the past should be called past and future, and the middle one present; the future and the present should likewise be so. Therefore among these four the third is best, because it is by function that the states differ, and by the difference of state the times are established as different. He holds that a dharma whose function has not yet occurred is called future, one with function occurring is called present, and one whose function has ceased is called past, and the substance does not differ. This is now fully known. He should further say: if the past and future also really have substance, they should be called present, so why call them past and future? Was it not said earlier that they are established by function? If so, in the present the faculties such as the eye are included in the homogeneous class; what function do they have? Are they not able to take a result and give a result? Then the homogeneous cause and so on in the past, since they can give results, should have function. If they have half a function, the marks of the times would be mixed. This is briefly examined; next we shall refute it at length. The verse says:

何礙用云何？無異世便壞，

What obstructs the function? How is it? Without a different time, it falls apart;

有誰未生滅？此法性甚深。

who is unborn or ceased? The nature of this dharma is very profound.

論曰：應說若法自體恆有，應一切時能起作用，以何礙力令此法體所起作用時有時無？若謂眾緣不和合者，此救非理，許常有故。又此作用云何得說為去來今？豈作用中而得更立有餘作用？若此作用非去來今而復說言作用是有，則無為故應常非無，故不應言作用已滅，及此未有法名去來。若許作用異法體者，可有此失，然無有異，故不應言有此過失。若爾，所立世義便壞，謂若作用即是法體，體既恆有用亦應然。何得有時名為過未？故彼所立世義不成。何為不成？以有為法未已生名未來，若已生未已滅名現在，若已滅名過去。彼復應說，若如現在法體實有，去來亦然，誰未已生？誰復已滅？謂有為法體實恆有，如何可得成，未已生已滅。先何所闕？彼未有故，名未已生。後復闕何？彼已無故，名為已滅。故不許法本無今有、有已還無，則三世義應一切種皆不成立。然彼所說，恆與有為諸相合故。行非常者，此但有虛言，生滅理無故。許體恆有說性非常，如是義言所未曾有。依如是義，故有頌言：

The Treatise says: One should say: if the self-essence of a dharma always exists, it should be able to perform its function at all times; by what obstructing power is the function that this dharma essence performs sometimes present and sometimes absent? If it is said that the multitude of conditions have not come together, this defense is unreasonable, because they admit that it always exists. Also, how can this function be called past, future, or present? Can one establish within a function yet another function? If this function is not past, future, or present and yet is said to exist, then, being unconditioned, it should be permanent and not non-existent, so one should not say that the function has ceased and that a dharma without it is called past or future. If it is admitted that the function differs from the dharma's essence, this fault may follow, but since there is no difference, one should not say that there is this fault. If so, the meaning of the times that they establish falls apart: if function is the essence of the dharma, then since the essence always exists the function should be likewise; how can there be times when it is called past or future? Therefore the meaning of the times as they establish it is not established. Why not established? Because a conditioned dharma that has not yet arisen is called future, one that has arisen and not yet ceased is called present, and one that has ceased is called past. They should also say: if the essence of a dharma really exists as in the present, and the past and future are likewise, then who has not yet arisen? Who has already ceased? If the essence of conditioned dharmas really always exists, how can it be established as not yet arisen or already ceased? What did it formerly lack? Because it does not yet exist it is called not yet arisen. What does it lack afterwards? Because it no longer exists it is called already ceased. Therefore if they do not admit that a dharma did not exist originally, exists now, and having existed returns to non-existence, then the meaning of the three times would fail to be established in every way. But they say that it is always joined to the marks of the conditioned and so formations are not permanent; this is only an empty word, since in principle there is no arising and ceasing. To admit that the essence always exists and yet say that the nature is impermanent is a meaning and statement never heard before. Because of this meaning, there is a verse:

許法體恆有，而說性非常，

They admit that the essence of dharmas always exists, yet say the nature is impermanent;

性體復無別，此真自在作。

and the nature and essence are again not different; this is truly an act of the self-existent.

又彼所言，世尊說故去來二世體實有者，我等亦說有去來世。謂過去世曾有名有，未來當有，有果因故。依如是義說有去來，非謂去來如現實有。誰言彼有如現在世？非如現世彼有云何？彼有去來二世自性。此復應詰：若俱是有，如何可言是去來性故說彼有？但據曾當因果二性，非體實有。世尊為遮謗因果見，據曾當義說有去來，有聲通顯有無法故。如世間說，有燈先無、有燈後無。又如有言：有燈已滅，非我今滅。說有去來，其義亦應爾。若不爾者，去來性不成。若爾，何緣世尊依彼杖髻外道說業過去盡滅變壞而猶是有。豈彼不許業曾有性？而今世尊重為說有，依彼所引現相續中與果功能密說為有。若不爾者，彼過去業現實有性，過去豈成？理必應爾。以薄伽梵於勝義空契經中說：眼根生位無所從來，眼根滅時無所造集。本無今有、有已還無。去來眼根若實有者，經不應說本無等言。若謂此言依現世說，此救非理，以現世性與彼眼根體無別故。若許現世本無今有、有已還無，是則眼根去來無體義已成立。又彼所說，要具二緣識方生故。去來二世體實有者，應共尋思，意法為緣生意識者，為法如意作能生緣？為法但能作所緣境？若法如意作能生緣，如何未來百千劫後當有彼法？或當亦無為能生緣生今時識。又涅槃性違一切生，立為能生，不應正理。若法但能為所緣境，我說過未亦是所緣，若無如何成所緣境？我說彼有，如成所緣。如何成所緣？謂曾有、當有。非憶過去色受等時，如現分明觀彼為有，但追憶彼曾有之相；逆觀未來當有亦爾，謂如曾現在所領色相，如是追憶過去為有，亦如當現在所領色相，如是逆觀未來為有。若如現有應成現世。若體現無，則應許有緣無境識，其理自成。若謂去來極微散亂有而非現，理亦不然，取彼相時非散亂故。又若彼色有同現在，唯有極微散亂為異，則極微色其體應常。

(The Treatise continues:) Moreover, as for what they say, that the past and future really exist because the World-Honored One spoke of them: we too say there are past and future times. That is, the past is said to exist because it once existed, and the future is said to exist because it will exist and because there is a cause of the result. It is by this meaning that past and future are said to exist, and not that past and future exist as the present really exists. Who says they exist as the present time exists? If they do not exist like the present, how do they exist? They exist as the own-nature of the two times, past and future. This should also be questioned: if both exist, how can one say that they exist because they are of the nature of past and future? This is only by the two natures of cause and effect, having been and going to be, and not the real existence of an essence. The World-Honored One, in order to block views that slander cause and effect, spoke of the existence of past and future by the meaning of having been and going to be, because the word "exist" commonly shows both existent and non-existent dharmas. As the world says: there was a lamp that did not exist before, there is a lamp that will not exist later. And as when someone says: the lamp has gone out, it is not that I have gone out now. The meaning of speaking of past and future as existing should likewise be so. If it were not so, the natures of past and future would not be established. If so, why did the World-Honored One, in addressing the non-Buddhist Jatila (name of a non-Buddhist teacher), say that karma is past, exhausted, ceased, and destroyed, and yet still exists? Did that one not admit the nature of karma as having been, and now the World-Honored One is again saying it exists? It refers to the present continuum, where the capacity to give results is secretly said to exist. If it were not so, the past karma's nature of really existing now would not make it past; this must be the case. Because the Bhagavan said in the sutra on ultimate emptiness: When the eye faculty arises, it comes from nowhere; when the eye faculty ceases, it goes nowhere to be stored. It did not exist originally, now it exists, and having existed it ceases again. If the eye faculties of the past and future really existed, the sutra should not say "did not exist originally" and the like. If it is said that these words speak of the present time, this defense is unreasonable, because the nature of the present time and that eye faculty are not different in essence. If it is admitted that the present time did not exist originally, now exists, and having existed ceases again, then it is already established that the eye faculty of the past and future has no substance. Also, as for what they say, that consciousness arises only with two conditions, so the past and future really exist: let us reflect together on whether, when a mind-consciousness arises with mind and dharmas as conditions, a dharma serves as a generating condition like the mind, or serves only as an object. If a dharma serves as a generating condition like the mind, how could a dharma be present a hundred thousand eons from now in the future? Or how could a non-existent one serve as the generating condition to give rise to present consciousness? Also, the nature of nirvana is opposed to all arising, and establishing it as a generator is not correct reasoning. If a dharma serves only as an object, we too say that the past and future are also objects; if they do not exist, how could they become objects? We say they exist, in the way they become objects. How do they become objects? Namely by having been and going to be. When one recalls past form, feeling, and so on, one does not see them as existing clearly as in the present, but only recalls their having-been aspect; looking ahead to the future is likewise, as if recalling the form that one once experienced in the present and thus regarding the past as existing, and also as if looking ahead to the form that one will experience in the present and thus regarding the future as existing. If they existed as the present exists, they would become the present. If their essence does not exist now, then it must be admitted that there is a consciousness that takes a non-existent object, and this principle is established by itself. If it is said that the atoms of the past and future exist scattered and not as present, this principle is also not so, because when one grasps their aspect it is not scattered. Moreover, if that form exists the same as in the present, and only the atoms are scattered and different, then the essence of atom-forms should be permanent.

又色唯應極微聚散，竟無少分可名生滅。是則遵崇邪命者論，棄背善逝所說契經。如契經說：眼根生位無所從來，乃至廣說，又非受等極微集成。如何可言去來散亂？然於受等追憶逆觀，亦如未滅已生時相。若如現有體應是常，若體現無，還應許有緣無境識，理亦自成。若體全無是所緣者，第十三處應是所緣，諸有達無第十三處。此能緣識為何所緣？若謂即緣彼名為境，是則應撥彼名為無。又若緣聲先非有者，此能緣識為何所緣？若謂即緣彼聲為境，求聲無者應更發聲。若謂聲無住未來位，未來實有如何謂無？若謂去來無現世者，此亦非理，其體一故。若有少分體差別者，本無今有其理自成。故識通緣有非有境。然菩薩說，世間所無我知我見無是處者，意說他人懷增上慢，亦於非有現相謂有，我唯於有方觀為有。若異此者，則一切覺皆有所緣，何緣於境得有猶豫或有差別。理必應然。以薄伽梵於餘處說：善來苾芻！汝等若能為我弟子，無諂無誑有信有勤，我旦教汝令暮獲勝，我暮教汝令旦獲勝。便知有是有、非有是非有、有上是有上、無上是無上。由此彼說，識有境故有去來者，亦不成因。又彼所言，業有果故有去來者，理亦不然。非經部師作如是說，即過去業能生當果，然業為先所引相續，轉變差別令當果生。彼我品中當廣顯示。若執實有過去未來，則一切時果體常有，業於彼果有何功能？若謂能生，則所生果本無今有，其理自成。若一切法一切時有，誰於誰有能生功能？又應顯成雨眾外道所黨邪論。彼作是說：有必常有，無必常無。無必不生，有必不滅。若謂能令果成現在，如何令果成現在耶？若謂引令至餘方所，則所引果其體應常。又無色法當如何引？又此所引應體本無。若謂但令體有差別，本無今有其理自成。是故此說一切有部，若說實有過去未來，於聖教中非為善說。

(The Treatise continues:) Also, form should only be the gathering and scattering of atoms, with not even a small part that could be called arising or ceasing. Then this would be to honor the doctrine of the wrong-livelihood teachers and abandon and turn away from the sutras spoken by the Sugata. As the sutra says: When the eye faculty arises it comes from nowhere, and so on at length; and feeling and the like are not formed by the gathering of atoms. How can one say that the past and future are scattered? Yet in recalling and looking ahead to feeling and so on, it is also as in the time of arising when not yet ceased. If it existed as the present, its essence would be permanent; if its essence does not exist now, then again it must be admitted that there is a consciousness taking a non-existent object, and the principle is established by itself. If what is entirely non-existent is an object, the thirteenth base would be an object, and those who understand there is no thirteenth base, what do they take as the object of the consciousness that knows it? If it is said that they take that very name as the object, then one should deny that that name is non-existent. Also, if a sound that did not exist before is taken as an object, what does this consciousness that takes it take as the object? If it is said that it takes that sound as the object, then one who seeks a sound that is non-existent should utter another sound. If it is said that the sound that does not exist stays in the state of the future, how could the future, which really exists, be called non-existent? If it is said that the past and future do not have the present, this too is not reasonable, because their essence is one. If there is a slight difference of essence, then that it did not exist originally and now exists is established by itself. Therefore consciousness takes both existent and non-existent objects. But the Bodhisattva said: That in the world there is what I do not know and do not see, this is impossible; he means that others who harbor overweening pride also take a non-existent appearance as existing, and I only regard what exists as existing. If it were otherwise, all awareness would have an object, and why, with respect to objects, could there be hesitation or difference? It must be so in principle. Because the Bhagavan said elsewhere: Come, bhikshus! If you can be my disciples, without flattery or deceit, with faith and diligence, if I teach you in the morning you will gain superiority by evening, if I teach you in the evening you will gain superiority by morning. Then you will know the existent as existent, the non-existent as non-existent, the superior as superior, the unsurpassed as unsurpassed. By this, what they say, that the past and future exist because consciousness has an object, is also not an established reason. Also, as for what they say, that the past and future exist because karma has a result, this too is not reasonable. It is not that the Sautrantika masters say that past karma itself can give rise to the future result; rather karma is a continuum first drawn forth, and its transformations and differences cause the future result to arise. This will be shown at length in the chapter on the person. If one clings to the really existing past and future, then the essence of the result would always exist at all times, and what capacity would karma have toward that result? If it is said that it can give rise to it, then the result that is produced did not exist originally and now exists, and this is established by itself. If all dharmas exist at all times, who has the capacity to generate toward whom? Also this would plainly establish the wrong doctrine of the Rain-Assembly non-Buddhists (Samkhya): They say thus: What exists always exists, and what does not exist always does not exist; what does not exist surely does not arise, and what exists surely does not cease. If it is said that karma can cause the result to become present, how does it cause the result to become present? If it is said to draw it to another place, then the drawn result would have a permanent essence. Moreover, how can one draw a formless dharma? Also, what is drawn should be one whose essence did not exist originally. If it is said that it only causes the essence to differ, then that it did not exist originally and now exists is established by itself. Therefore, in this Sarvastivada school, to say that the past and future really exist is not well said in the holy teaching.

若欲善說一切有者，應如契經所說而說。經如何說？如契經言：梵志當知，一切有者，唯十二處或唯三世。如其所有而說有言。若去來無，如何可說有能所繫及離繫耶？彼所生因，隨眠有故，說有去來能繫煩惱。緣彼煩惱隨眠有故，說有去來所繫縛事。若隨眠斷，得離繫名。毘婆沙師作如是說：如現實有過去未來。所有於中不能通釋，諸自愛者應如是知，法性甚深非尋思境，豈不能釋便撥為無？有異門故此生此滅，謂色等生即色等滅。有異門故異生異滅，謂未來生現在世滅。有異門故即世名生，以正生時世所攝故。有異門故說世有生，未來世有多剎那故。傍論已了，今應思擇，諸事已斷彼離繫耶？設事離繫彼已斷耶？若事離繫彼必已斷，有事已斷而非離繫。斷非離繫其事云何？頌曰：

(The Treatise continues:) If one wishes to speak well of the school that says all exists, one should speak as the sutra says. How does the sutra say it? As the sutra says: Brahmin, know that "all that exists" is only the twelve sense-bases or only the three times. One speaks of existence according to what there is. If past and future did not exist, how could one speak of what binds, what is bound, and release from bondage? Because the latent afflictions that are the cause of what arises there exist, one says that past and future afflictions can bind; because the latent afflictions take that affliction as object, one says that there are past and future matters that are bound. If the latent afflictions are cut off, it is called release from bondage. The Vaibhashika masters say thus: As the past and future really exist. What cannot be explained in this, those who are self-regarding should know thus: the nature of dharmas is very profound and not an object of reflection; how can one deny them as non-existent just because one cannot explain them? Because there are different expressions, this arises and this ceases means that form and the like arise and form and the like cease. Because there are different expressions, one is born differently and ceases differently, namely, arises in the future and ceases in the present time. Because there are different expressions, a time is itself called arising, because at the very moment of arising it is included in time. Because there are different expressions, one says that a time has arising, because the future time has many moments. The side discussion is finished; now we should consider: for the various matters that have been abandoned, are they released? Or, supposing a matter is released from bondage, has it been abandoned? If a matter is released from bondage, it must have been abandoned; there are matters that have been abandoned but not released. What is the case of abandonment without release? The verse says:

於見苦已斷，餘遍行隨眠，

For what is abandoned by seeing suffering, the other pervasive latent afflictions,

及前品已斷，餘緣此猶繫。

and, for what was abandoned in the earlier grade, those others that take it as object still bind.

論曰：且見道位苦智已生、集智未生，見苦所斷諸事已斷，見集所斷遍行隨眠若未永斷，能緣此者於此猶繫。及脩道位隨何道生？九品事中前品已斷，餘未斷品所有隨眠，能緣此者於此猶繫。斷非離繫，如是應知。何事有幾隨眠隨增？若隨事別答，便費多言論，是故應造略毘婆沙，由此雖勞少少功力，而能越渡大大問流。謂法雖多，略為十六種，即三界、五部及無漏法。能緣彼識名數亦然。但應了知何法何識境，易思何事何隨眠隨增。此中且應知，何法何識境？頌曰：

The Treatise says: First, in the stage of the path of seeing, when the knowledge of suffering has arisen and the knowledge of origin has not yet arisen, the matters abandoned by seeing suffering have been abandoned, but the pervasive latent afflictions abandoned by seeing origin, if not yet cut off forever, those that take them as objects still bind regarding these. And in the stage of the path of cultivation, whichever path arises, among the nine grades of matters, the earlier grade has been abandoned, but the latent afflictions of the other grades not yet abandoned, those that take them as objects still bind regarding these. Abandonment without release should be understood thus. Which matter has how many latent afflictions increasing in it? If one answered case by case, it would take many words; therefore one should compose a brief Vibhasha, whereby, though one expends little effort, one can cross great streams of questions. That is, though dharmas are many, they can be summarized into sixteen kinds, namely the three realms, the five groups, and the unconditioned dharmas. The names and numbers of the consciousnesses that take them are likewise so. One need only understand which dharma is the object of which consciousness, and it will be easy to reflect on which latent afflictions increase in which matter. Here, first, one should know which dharma is the object of which consciousness. The verse says:

見苦集脩斷，若欲界所繫，

What is abandoned by seeing suffering, origin, and cultivation, if belonging to the desire realm,

自界三色一，無漏識所行，

three of its own realm and one of form, the unconditioned, are the range of consciousness,

色自下各三，上一淨識境，

form its own and lower each three, and one of the upper, pure consciousness is the object,

無色通三界，各三淨識緣，

the formless pervades the three realms, each three, pure consciousness takes them,

見滅道所斷，皆增自識行，

what is abandoned by seeing cessation and the path, each adds the consciousness of its own,

無漏三界中，後三淨識境。

among the unconditioned of the three realms, the last three are the object of pure consciousness.

論曰：若欲界繫見苦見集脩所斷法，各五識緣，謂自界三即如前說，及色界一即脩所斷，無漏第五，皆容緣故。若色界繫，即前所說三部諸法，各八識緣，謂自下三皆如前說，及上界一即脩所斷，無漏第八，皆容緣故。若無色繫，即前所說三部諸法，各十識緣，謂三界三皆如前說，無漏第十，皆容緣故。見滅見道所斷諸法，應知一一增自識緣。此復云何？謂欲界繫見滅所斷為六識緣，五即如前，增見滅斷。見道所斷為六識緣，五亦如前，增見道斷。色無色界見滅道斷，隨應為九十一識緣。若無漏法為十識緣，謂三界中各後三部，即見滅道脩所斷識，無漏第十，皆容緣故。為攝前義，復說頌言：

The Treatise says: If dharmas belonging to the desire realm that are abandoned by seeing suffering, seeing origin, and cultivation, each is taken by five consciousnesses, namely three of its own realm as said before, and one of the form realm, namely what is abandoned by cultivation, and the fifth, the unconditioned, all of which may take them. If dharmas belonging to the form realm, namely the three groups said before, each is taken by eight consciousnesses, namely three of its own and lower as said before, and one of the upper realm, namely what is abandoned by cultivation, and the eighth, the unconditioned, all of which may take them. If dharmas belonging to the formless realm, namely the three groups said before, each is taken by ten consciousnesses, namely three of the three realms as said before, and the tenth, the unconditioned, all of which may take them. The dharmas abandoned by seeing cessation and seeing the path should be known to each add the consciousness of their own as taking them. How is this? The desire realm dharma abandoned by seeing cessation is taken by six consciousnesses, the five as before adding what is abandoned by seeing cessation. The desire realm dharma abandoned by seeing the path is taken by six consciousnesses, the five also as before adding what is abandoned by seeing the path. For the dharmas of the form and formless realms abandoned by seeing cessation and the path, they should be taken by nine or ten consciousnesses as is appropriate. The unconditioned dharma is taken by ten consciousnesses, namely the last three groups in the three realms, which are the consciousnesses abandoned by seeing cessation, the path, and cultivation, and the tenth, the unconditioned, all of which may take them. To gather the preceding meaning, a verse is given again:

見苦集脩斷，欲色無色繫，

What is abandoned by seeing suffering, origin, and cultivation, belonging to the desire, form, and formless realms,

應知如次第，五八十識緣。

should be known in order as taken by five, eight, and ten consciousnesses.

見滅道所斷，各增自識緣，

What is abandoned by seeing cessation and the path each adds the consciousness of its own as taking it;

無漏法應知，能為十識境。

the unconditioned dharma should be known to be able to be the object of ten consciousnesses.

如是了知十六種法為十六識所緣境已，今應思何事何隨眠隨增。若別疏條恐文煩廣，故我於此略示方隅。且有問言：所繫事內樂根有幾隨眠隨增？應觀樂根總有七種，謂欲界一即脩所斷，色界五部，無漏第七。一切無漏非諸隨眠之所隨增，如前已說。此中前六隨其所應欲脩所斷及諸遍行色界一切隨眠隨增。若有問言：緣樂根識復有幾種隨眠隨增？應觀此識總有十二，謂欲界四除見滅斷，色界五部，無色界二即見道諦及脩所斷，無漏第十二，皆能緣樂根。此隨所應欲界四部，色界有為緣，無色界二部，及諸遍行隨眠隨增。若復有問言：緣緣樂根識復有幾種隨眠隨增？應觀此識總有十四，於前十二更加二種，即無色界見苦集斷。如是十四識能緣緣樂根，此隨所應欲色如上，無色四部隨眠隨增。准此方隅，餘應思擇。若心由彼名有隨眠，彼於此心定隨增不？此不決定，或有隨眠，謂與心相應，及緣心未斷相應已斷則不隨增。依此義門應作是說。頌曰：

(The Treatise continues:) Having thus understood the sixteen kinds of dharmas as the objects of sixteen consciousnesses, we should now consider which latent afflictions increase in which matter. If I were to itemize them separately, I fear the text would become verbose, so I briefly show the direction here. First, if someone asks: Among the bound matters, how many latent afflictions increase in the faculty of pleasure? One should observe that the faculty of pleasure has seven kinds in total, namely one of the desire realm, abandoned by cultivation, five groups of the form realm, and the seventh, the unconditioned. All the unconditioned are not increased by latent afflictions, as already said before. Of these, the first six, as is appropriate, are increased by the latent afflictions abandoned by cultivation in the desire realm, and by all the pervasive latent afflictions and all the latent afflictions of the form realm. If someone asks: How many kinds of latent afflictions increase in the consciousness that takes the faculty of pleasure as its object? One should observe that this consciousness has twelve in total, namely four of the desire realm excluding what is abandoned by seeing cessation, five groups of the form realm, two of the formless realm, namely what is abandoned by seeing the path and by cultivation, and the twelfth, the unconditioned, all of which can take the faculty of pleasure. These are increased, as is appropriate, by the latent afflictions of the four groups of the desire realm, the conditioned ones of the form realm, the two groups of the formless realm, and the pervasive latent afflictions. If someone further asks: How many kinds of latent afflictions increase in the consciousness that takes as object the consciousness that takes the faculty of pleasure? One should observe that this consciousness has fourteen in total, adding two kinds to the previous twelve, namely what is abandoned by seeing suffering and origin in the formless realm. These fourteen consciousnesses can take the consciousness that takes the faculty of pleasure as object; this is increased, as is appropriate, by the latent afflictions of the desire and form realms as above, and of the four groups of the formless realm. The rest should be considered according to this direction. If a mind is said to have latent afflictions by reason of them, does it definitely have them increasing in it? This is not fixed: there may be latent afflictions that are associated with the mind, and those that take the mind as object; if not yet abandoned they increase, but if the association has been abandoned they do not increase. By this gate of meaning one should say thus. The verse says:

有隨眠心二，謂有染無染，

Minds that have latent afflictions are of two kinds, namely defiled and undefiled,

有染心通二，無染局隨增。

the defiled mind includes both, the undefiled is limited to increase through objects.

論曰：有隨眠心總有二種，有染、無染心差別故。於中有染或有隨增，謂相應緣隨眠未斷，相應已斷則不隨增，仍說有隨眠，以恆相應故。若無染者，唯局隨增。緣此隨眠必未永斷，此唯據隨增名有隨眠故。如上所說十種隨眠次第生時，誰前誰後？頌曰：

The Treatise says: Minds that have latent afflictions are of two kinds in total, because of the difference between defiled and undefiled minds. Among them, the defiled may or may not have increase: if the associated and object-taking latent afflictions are not yet abandoned they increase, but if the association has been abandoned they do not increase, yet it is still said to have latent afflictions because they are constantly associated. As for the undefiled, it is limited only to increase through objects. The latent afflictions that take it as an object are surely not yet cut off forever; here it is said to have latent afflictions only by reference to increase. When the ten latent afflictions described above arise in sequence, which comes first and which after? The verse says:

無明疑邪身，邊見戒見取，

Ignorance, doubt, wrong view, self-view, extreme view, clinging to rules, clinging to views,

貪慢瞋如次，由前引後生。

greed, pride, anger, in order, each drawn forth by the preceding to arise.

論曰：且諸煩惱次第生時，先由無明於諦不了，不欲觀苦乃至道諦。由不了故，次引生疑，謂聞二途便懷猶豫為苦非苦，乃至廣說。從此猶豫引邪見生，謂邪聞思生邪決定，撥無苦諦乃至廣說。由撥無諦引身見生，謂取蘊中撥無苦理，便決定執此是我故。從此身見引邊見生，謂依我執斷常邊故。從此邊見引生戒取，謂由於我隨執一邊，便計此執為能淨故。從戒禁取引見取生，謂計能淨已必執為勝故。從此見取次引貪生，謂自見中情深愛故。從此貪後次引慢生，謂自見中深愛著已，恃生高舉𣣋蔑他故。從此慢後次引生瞋，謂自見中深愛恃已，於他所起違己見中，情不能忍必憎嫌故。有餘師說：於自見解取捨位中起憎嫌故。見諦所斷貪等生時，緣自相續見為境故。如是且依次第起說，越次起者前後無定。諸煩惱起由幾因緣？頌曰：

The Treatise says: First, when the afflictions arise in sequence, first through ignorance one does not understand the truths and does not wish to contemplate suffering up to the truth of the path. Because of not understanding, doubt is next drawn forth: hearing two paths one harbors hesitation about whether it is suffering or not, and so on at length. From this hesitation wrong view is drawn forth, namely from wrong hearing and reflection arises wrong decision, denying the truth of suffering, and so on at length. From denying the truths, the view of self is drawn forth, namely, in the aggregates of grasping, denying the principle of suffering, one then decisively grasps that this is a self. From this view of self the view of extremes is drawn forth, because one depends on the grasping of self to take an extreme of annihilation or permanence. From this view of extremes clinging to rules is drawn forth, namely, from following one extreme with regard to self, one then reckons this grasping as able to purify. From clinging to rules and rituals, clinging to views is drawn forth, because having reckoned that it can purify, one must then grasp it as supreme. From this clinging to views, greed is drawn forth in turn, because one deeply loves one's own views. After this greed, pride is drawn forth in turn, because after deeply loving and clinging to one's own views, one relies on this to become lofty and to look down on others. After this pride, anger is drawn forth in turn, because after deeply loving and being proud of one's own views, when others hold views contrary to one's own, one cannot bear it in one's heart and must hate and resent them. Some other masters say: Because hatred and resentment arise in the stage of accepting and rejecting one's own understanding. When greed and the rest abandoned by seeing the truths arise, it is because they take as their object the view in one's own continuum. This is said according to the order of arising; those arising out of order have no fixed before and after. By how many causes and conditions do the afflictions arise? The verse says:

由未斷隨眠，及隨應境現，

By the not yet abandoned latent affliction, and by the objects it follows being present,

非理作意起，說惑具因緣。

and by the arising of improper attention, the afflictions are said to have their causes and conditions complete.

論曰：由三因緣諸煩惱起。且如將起欲貪纏時，未斷未遍知欲貪隨眠故，順欲貪境現在前故，緣彼非理作意起故，由此力故便起欲貪。此三因緣如其次第，即因境界加行三力，餘煩惱起類此應知。謂此且據具因緣說，或有唯託境界力生。如退法根阿羅漢等，即上所說隨眠並纏。經說為漏、瀑流、軛、取。漏謂三漏：一欲漏、二有漏、三無明漏。言瀑流者，謂四瀑流：一欲瀑流、二有瀑流、三見瀑流、四無明瀑流。軛謂四軛，如瀑流說。取謂四取：一欲取、二見取、三戒禁取、四我語取。如是漏等其體云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Afflictions arise through three causes and conditions. For instance, when an entanglement of craving for desire is about to arise, it is because the latent tendency of craving for desire has not yet been cut off or fully known, because an object suited to craving for desire is present, and because irrational attention directed at that object arises; by the force of these, craving for desire arises. These three causes and conditions are, in order, the three powers of cause, object and preparatory effort, and the arising of other afflictions should be understood by analogy. This is said regarding the case in which all the causes and conditions are present; or an affliction may arise relying only on the power of the object, as in the case of an arhat of the type that can fall away. These very latent tendencies and entanglements spoken of above are called in the sutras outflows, floods, yokes and graspings. The outflows are three: first the outflow of desire, second the outflow of existence, third the outflow of ignorance. The floods are four: first the flood of desire, second the flood of existence, third the flood of views, fourth the flood of ignorance. The yokes are four, as with the floods. The graspings are four: first grasping at desire, second grasping at views, third grasping at rules and observances, fourth grasping at the doctrine of self. What is the substance of these outflows and the others? The verse says:

欲煩惱並纏，除痴名欲漏，

The afflictions of the desire realm together with the entanglements, excluding ignorance, are called the outflow of desire,

有漏上二界，唯煩惱除痴，

the outflow of existence is the upper two realms, only afflictions, excluding ignorance,

同無記內門，定地故合一，

being the same as neutral, turning inward, and arising on the grounds of concentration, so they are combined into one,

無明諸有本，故別為一漏。

ignorance is the root of all existences, and so it is set apart as one outflow.

瀑流軛亦然，別立見利故，

The floods and yokes are likewise, with views separately established because of their sharpness,

見不順住故，非於漏獨立。

since views do not accord with abiding, they are not independent among the outflows.

欲有軛並痴，見分二名取，

Desire, existence, the yoke and ignorance, with views divided into two, are called graspings;

無明不別立，以非能取故。

ignorance is not set apart, because it is not able to grasp.

論曰：欲界煩惱並纏，除痴，四十一物總名欲漏，謂欲界繫根本煩惱三十一併十纏。色無色界煩惱除痴，五十二物總名有漏，謂上二界根本煩惱各二十六。豈不彼有惛沈掉舉二種纏耶？《品類足》中亦作是說：云何有漏？謂除無明，餘色無色二界所繫結縛隨眠隨煩惱纏。今於此中何故不說？迦濕彌羅國毘婆沙師言：彼界纏少，不自在故。何緣合說二界隨眠為一有漏？同無記性於內門轉，依定地生，由三義同故合為一。如前所說名有貪因，即是此中名有漏義。准此三界十五無明義至已立為無明漏。何緣唯此別立漏名？無明能為諸有本故。瀑流及軛體與漏同，然於其中見亦別立，謂前欲漏即欲瀑流及欲軛，如是有漏即有瀑流及有軛。析出諸見為見瀑流及見軛者，謂猛利故令住名漏，如後當說。見不順彼，性猛利故，由此於漏不獨立名，但可與餘合立為漏。如是已顯二十九物名欲瀑流，謂貪瞋慢各有五種、疑四、纏十。二十八物名有瀑流，謂貪與慢各十、疑八。三十六物名見瀑流，謂三界中各十二見。十五物名無明瀑流，謂三界無明各有五。應知四軛與瀑流同，四取應知體同四軛。然欲我語各並無明，見分為二與前軛別。即前欲軛並欲無明三十四物總名欲取，謂貪瞋慢無明各五、疑有四、並十纏。即前有軛並二界無明三十八物總名我語取，謂貪慢無明各十、疑有八。於見軛中除戒禁取，餘三十物總名見取，所除六物名戒禁取。何緣別立戒禁取耶？由此獨為聖道怨故，雙誑在家出家眾故。謂在家眾由此誑惑，計自餓等為天道故。諸出家眾由此誑惑，計捨可愛境為清淨道故。何緣無明不別立取？能取諸有故立取名，然諸無明非能取故。謂不了相說名無明，彼非能取，非猛利故，但可與餘合立為取。然契經說：欲軛云何？

The treatise says: The afflictions of the desire realm together with the entanglements, excluding ignorance, forty-one items in all, are together called the outflow of desire, namely the thirty-one root afflictions bound to the desire realm and the ten entanglements. The afflictions of the form and formless realms, excluding ignorance, fifty-two items in all, are together called the outflow of existence, namely twenty-six root afflictions for each of the upper two realms. Do those realms not also have the two entanglements of torpor and restlessness? The Prakaranapada also says: What is the outflow of existence? It is, excluding ignorance, all the fetters, latent tendencies, secondary afflictions and entanglements bound to the form and formless realms. Why is it not mentioned here? The Vaibhashikas of Kashmir say: because the entanglements in those realms are few and not sovereign. Why are the latent tendencies of the two realms combined into the one outflow of existence? Because they are alike in being neutral in nature, turn inward, and arise relying on the grounds of concentration; being the same in three respects, they are combined as one. What was said before as the cause of craving for existence is the meaning of the outflow of existence here. By this reasoning, the fifteen ignorances of the three realms have been established as the outflow of ignorance. Why is only this set apart under the name of outflow? Because ignorance can be the root of all existences. The floods and yokes are the same in substance as the outflows, but among them views are also set apart; that is, the outflow of desire as above is the flood of desire and the yoke of desire, and likewise the outflow of existence is the flood of existence and the yoke of existence. Views are separated out as the flood of views and the yoke of views because they are sharp and keep one abiding, called outflow, as will be explained later. Views do not accord with that, being sharp in nature, and for this reason they do not stand independently as an outflow but can only be combined with others to form an outflow. Thus it is shown that twenty-nine items are called the flood of desire, namely craving, hatred and pride with five each, doubt four, and entanglements ten. Twenty-eight items are called the flood of existence, namely craving and pride ten each and doubt eight. Thirty-six items are called the flood of views, namely twelve views in each of the three realms. Fifteen items are called the flood of ignorance, namely five ignorances in each of the three realms. It should be known that the four yokes are the same as the floods, and that the four graspings are the same in substance as the four yokes. However, the grasping of desire and the grasping of self-doctrine are each combined with ignorance, and the views are divided into two, differing from the earlier yokes. That is, the earlier yoke of desire together with the ignorance of desire, thirty-four items in all, is together called grasping at desire, namely craving, hatred, pride and ignorance five each, doubt four, and ten entanglements. The earlier yoke of existence together with the ignorance of the two realms, thirty-eight items in all, is together called grasping at the doctrine of self, namely craving, pride and ignorance ten each and doubt eight. In the yoke of views, excluding grasping at rules and observances, the other thirty items are together called grasping at views, and the six excluded items are called grasping at rules and observances. Why is grasping at rules and observances set apart? Because it alone is the enemy of the noble path and deceives both lay and renunciant communities. That is, lay people are deceived by it into taking starvation and the like as the path to heaven, and renunciants are deceived by it into taking the abandonment of agreeable objects as the path of purity. Why is ignorance not set apart as a grasping? Grasping is so named because it can grasp existences, but ignorance cannot grasp. That is, not understanding the characteristics is called ignorance; it cannot grasp and is not sharp, and so can only be combined with others to form a grasping. However, a sutra says: What is the yoke of desire?

謂諸欲中欲貪、欲欲、欲親、欲愛、欲樂、欲悶、欲耽、欲嗜、欲喜、欲藏、欲隨、欲著纏壓於心，是名欲軛。有軛、見軛應知亦爾。又餘經說：欲貪名取。由此故知，於欲等四所起欲貪名欲等取。如是已辯隨眠並纏，經說為漏瀑流軛取。此隨眠等名有何義？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) Among desires, desirous craving, desire for desire, intimacy with desire, love of desire, delight in desire, anguish over desire, absorption in desire, longing for desire, joy in desire, hoarding of desire, following desire, and the entanglement of attachment to desire pressing on the mind: this is called the yoke of desire. The yoke of existence and the yoke of views should be known likewise. Another sutra says: craving for desire is called grasping. From this it is known that the craving for desire arising toward the four, desire and the rest, is called grasping at desire and so on. Thus the latent tendencies and entanglements, called in the sutras outflows, floods, yokes and graspings, have been explained. What is the meaning of the names latent tendency and so on? The verse says:

微細二隨增，隨逐與隨縛，

Subtle, the two increases, following, and binding along with,

住流漂合執，是隨眠等義。

abiding, flowing, drifting, joining, grasping: these are the meanings of latent tendency and the rest.

論曰：根本煩惱現在前時，行相難知故名微細。二隨增者，能於所緣及所相應增惛滯故。言隨逐者，謂能起得恆隨有情常為過患，不作加行為令彼生。或設劬勞為遮彼起，而數現起，故名隨縛。由如是義故名隨眠。稽留有情久住生死，或令流轉於生死中，從有頂天至無間獄。由彼相續於六瘡門洩過無窮故名為漏，極漂善品故名瀑流，和合有情故名為軛，能為依執故名為取。若善釋者應作是言，諸境界中流注相續洩過不絕故名為漏。如契經說：具壽當知，譬如挽船逆流而上，設大功用行尚為難。若放此船順流而去，雖捨功用行不為難。起善染心應知亦爾。准此經意，於境界中煩惱不絕說名為漏，若勢增上說名瀑流。謂諸有情若墜於彼，唯可隨順無能違逆，湧泛漂激難違拒故。於現行時非極增上說名為軛，但令有情與種種類苦和合故。或數現行故名為軛，執欲等故說名為取。

The treatise says: When a root affliction is present, its mode of operation is hard to know, and so it is called subtle. By the two increases is meant that it can increase dullness and stagnation in its object and in what is associated with it. By following is meant that the possession that can give rise to it constantly follows sentient beings and is always a fault, so that without making any effort to cause it to arise, or even when one makes efforts to prevent its arising, it still arises repeatedly; therefore it is called binding along with. By such meanings it is called a latent tendency (anusaya, literally sleeping along with). It detains sentient beings in samsara for a long time, or causes them to flow along in birth and death from the Peak of Existence to the Avici hell. Because in its continuity it leaks faults endlessly through the six sores, the gates of the senses, it is called an outflow. Because it most washes away wholesome qualities it is called a flood; because it joins sentient beings together it is called a yoke; and because it serves as that on which one relies and holds, it is called grasping. If one explains it well, one should say that because it flows on continuously in its objects and leaks faults without end, it is called an outflow. As a sutra says: Venerable one, you should know that, for example, pulling a boat upstream against the current is difficult even with great effort; but if one lets the boat go downstream, it is not difficult even without effort. The arising of wholesome and defiled minds should be understood likewise. According to the meaning of this sutra, the uninterrupted afflictions in their objects are called outflows, and when their force is increased they are called floods. That is, if sentient beings fall into them, they can only follow along and cannot resist, since the surging and drifting currents are hard to oppose. When they are in present operation but not at the extreme of increase, they are called yokes, because they join sentient beings with various kinds of suffering; or they are called yokes because they arise repeatedly. They are called graspings because they cling to desire and the like.

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang by imperial order

分別隨眠品第五之三

Chapter 5 on the Analysis of Latent Tendencies, Part 3

如是已辯隨眠並纏，世尊說為漏瀑流等。為唯爾所、為復有餘？頌曰：

The latent tendencies and entanglements, which the World-Honored One called outflows, floods and so on, have thus been explained. Are there only this many, or are there others? The verse says:

由結等差別，復說有五種。

By the differences of fetters and the rest, five kinds are again spoken of.

論曰：即諸煩惱，結、縛、隨眠、隨煩惱、纏，義差別故，復說五種。且結云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: These same afflictions are again spoken of as five kinds, namely fetters, bonds, latent tendencies, secondary afflictions and entanglements, because of differences of meaning. What, first, are the fetters? The verse says:

結九物取等，立見取二結，

There are nine fetters; grasping and the like, setting up two fetters of views and grasping,

由二唯不善，及自在起故

because the two are only unwholesome, and because they arise at will,

纏中唯嫉慳，建立為二結，

among the entanglements only envy and miserliness are set up as two fetters,

或二數行故，為賤貧因故，

either because the two occur repeatedly, or because they are causes of lowliness and poverty,

遍顯隨惑故，惱亂二部故。

because they universally manifest secondary afflictions, or because they trouble two groups.

論曰：結有九種，一愛結、二恚結、三慢結、四無明結、五見結、六取結、七疑結、八嫉結、九慳結。此中愛結謂三界貪，餘隨所應當辯其相。見結謂三見，取結謂二取。依如是理，故有說言：頗有見相應法為愛結繫非見結繫，非不有見隨眠隨增？曰：有。云何？集智已生滅智未生見滅道所斷二取相應法，彼為愛結為所緣繫非見結繫，遍行見結已永斷故。非遍見結，所緣相應二俱無故。然彼有見隨眠隨增，二取見隨眠於彼隨增故。何緣三見別立見結，二取別立為取結耶？三見二取，物取等故。謂彼三見有十八物，二取亦然，故名物等。三等所取，二等能取，故名取等。所取能取有差別故，立為二結。何故纏中嫉慳二種建立為結非餘纏耶？二唯不善自在起故。謂唯此二兩義具足，餘皆不然，故唯立二。若纏唯八此釋可然，許有十纏此釋非理，以忿、覆二種亦具兩義故。由此若許具有十纏，應言嫉、慳過失尤重，謂此二種數現行故。又二能為賤貧因故、遍顯慼歡隨煩惱故、惱亂出家在家部故、或惱亂天阿素洛故、或惱人天二勝趣故、或惱亂他及自部故。佛於餘處依差別門，即以結聲說有五種。頌曰：

The treatise says: There are nine kinds of fetters: first the fetter of craving, second the fetter of ill will, third the fetter of pride, fourth the fetter of ignorance, fifth the fetter of views, sixth the fetter of grasping, seventh the fetter of doubt, eighth the fetter of envy, ninth the fetter of miserliness. Among these, the fetter of craving means craving in the three realms, and the characteristics of the rest should be discussed as appropriate. The fetter of views means the three views, and the fetter of grasping means the two graspings. According to this reasoning, some say: Is there a dharma associated with views that is bound by the fetter of craving but not bound by the fetter of views, and yet in which the latent tendency of views does not increase? The answer: There is. How? A dharma associated with the two graspings, to be cut off by the seeing of cessation and of the path, after the knowledge of origin has arisen and before the knowledge of cessation has arisen: it is bound by the fetter of craving as its object but not bound by the fetter of views, because the pervasive fetter of views has been permanently cut off. It is not that the fetter of views is not pervasive; both the object and the association are absent. However, the latent tendency of views increases in it, because the latent tendency of the two graspings increases in it. Why are the three views set up separately as a fetter of views, and the two graspings separately as a fetter of grasping? Because the three views are equal in items and grasping is equal in items. That is, the three views have eighteen items, and the two graspings are likewise, so they are called equal in items. The three share what is grasped and the two share what grasps, so they are called equal in grasping. Because of the difference between what is grasped and what grasps, they are established as two fetters. Why, among the entanglements, are the two, envy and miserliness, established as fetters and not the others? The two are only unwholesome and arise at will. That is, only these two fully possess both meanings, and the others do not, so only two are established. If there were only eight entanglements, this explanation would hold, but if ten entanglements are admitted, this explanation is not reasonable, because anger and concealment also have both meanings. Therefore, if the full ten entanglements are admitted, it should be said that envy and miserliness have the heavier fault, since these two occur repeatedly. Also because the two can be causes of lowliness and poverty, because they universally manifest grief, joy and secondary afflictions, because they trouble renunciants and householders, or trouble gods and asuras, or trouble the two superior destinies of humans and gods, or trouble others and their own group. Elsewhere the Buddha, according to a different approach, uses the word fetter and speaks of five kinds. The verse says:

又五順下分，由二不超欲，

Also five conduce to the lower portion, by two one does not surpass desire,

由三復還下，攝門根故三。

by three one again returns below; because they include the gates and the roots, three.

或不欲發趣，迷道及疑道，

Or not wishing to set out, being lost on the path and doubting the path,

能障趣解脫，故唯說斷三。

can obstruct going toward liberation, and so only three are said to be cut off.

論曰：何等為五？謂有身見、戒禁取、疑、欲貪、瞋恚。何緣此五名順下分？此五順益下分界故。謂唯欲界得下分名，此五於彼能為順益。由後二種不能超欲界，設有能超由前三還下，如守獄卒防邏人故。有餘師說：言下分者，謂下有情即諸異生，及下界即欲界。前三能障超下有情，後二能令不超下界，故五皆得順下分名。諸得預流六煩惱斷，何緣但說斷三結耶？理實應言斷六煩惱，攝門根故但說斷三。謂所斷中類有三種，唯一通二通四部故，說斷三種攝彼三門。又所斷中三隨三轉，謂邊執見隨身見轉，見取隨戒取轉，邪見隨疑轉。說斷三種攝彼三根，故說斷三已說斷六。有作是釋：凡趣異方有三種障：一不欲發；二迷正道，依邪道故；三疑正道。趣解脫者亦有如斯相似三障，謂由身見怖畏解脫不欲發趣，由戒禁取依執邪道迷失正路，由疑於道深懷猶預。佛顯預流永斷如是趣解脫障，故說斷三。佛於餘經，如順下分，說順上分亦有五種。頌曰：

The treatise says: What are the five? They are the view of a self in the body, grasping at rules and observances, doubt, craving for desire and ill will. Why are these five called conducive to the lower portion? Because these five favor the lower realm. Only the desire realm gains the name of the lower portion, and these five can favor it. By the latter two one cannot surpass the desire realm, and even if one could, one returns below because of the first three, as a prison guard watches and patrols. Other teachers say: the lower portion means lower sentient beings, namely ordinary beings, and the lower realm, namely the desire realm. The first three can obstruct surpassing the lower sentient beings, and the latter two can prevent surpassing the lower realm, and so all five gain the name conducive to the lower portion. Those who attain stream-entry cut off six afflictions; why is it said that they cut off only three fetters? In truth it should be said that they cut off six afflictions, but because the gates and roots are included, it is only said that they cut off three. That is, the kinds to be cut off are of three types: some pertain to only one part, some to two parts, and some to four parts; saying that three are cut off includes these three gates. Also among what is to be cut off, three follow three: extreme views follow the view of self, grasping at views follows grasping at rules, and wrong views follow doubt. Saying that three are cut off includes those three roots, and so saying that three are cut off already says that six are cut off. Some explain this way: those who go toward another region have three kinds of obstacles: first, not wishing to set out; second, losing the right road by relying on a wrong path; third, doubting the right road. Those who go toward liberation likewise have three similar obstacles: through the view of self one fears liberation and does not wish to set out; through grasping at rules one relies on and clings to a wrong path and loses the right road; and through doubt one harbors deep hesitation about the path. The Buddha shows that the stream-enterer permanently cuts off these obstacles to going toward liberation, and so says that three are cut off. In other sutras the Buddha, as with those conducive to the lower portion, also says that there are five conducive to the upper portion. The verse says:

順上分亦五，色無色二貪，

Those conducive to the upper portion are also five: craving for form and formlessness,

掉舉慢無明，令不超上故。

restlessness, pride and ignorance, because they keep one from surpassing the upper.

論曰：如是五種若未斷時，能令有情不超上界。順益上界故，名順上分結。已辯結。縛云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: As long as these five are not cut off, they keep sentient beings from surpassing the upper realms. Because they favor the upper realms, they are called fetters conducive to the upper portion. The fetters have been explained. What are the bonds? The verse says:

縛三由三受。

There are three bonds, according to the three feelings.

論曰：縛有三種：一貪縛，謂一切貪；二瞋縛，謂一切瞋；三痴縛，謂一切痴。何緣唯說此三為縛？由隨三受說縛有三。謂於樂受貪縛隨增，所緣相應俱隨增故。於苦受瞋、於捨受痴，應知亦爾。雖於捨受亦有貪瞋，非如痴故。約自相續，樂等三受為縛所緣，作此定說。已分別縛。隨眠雲何？頌曰：

The treatise says: There are three kinds of bonds: first the bond of craving, which means all craving; second the bond of hatred, which means all hatred; third the bond of delusion, which means all delusion. Why are only these three said to be bonds? Because the three bonds are spoken of according to the three feelings. That is, in pleasant feeling the bond of craving increases, since both the object and what is associated with it increase along with it. The same should be known of hatred in painful feeling and delusion in neutral feeling. Although craving and hatred also occur in neutral feeling, it is not like delusion. This is a definite statement made with respect to one's own continuum, in which the three feelings of pleasure and so on are the objects of the bonds. The bonds have been analyzed. What are the latent tendencies? The verse says:

隨眠前已說。

The latent tendencies have been explained earlier.

論曰：隨眠有六、或七或十、或九十八，如前已說。隨眠既已說。隨煩惱云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: There are six latent tendencies, or seven, or ten, or ninety-eight, as already stated. The latent tendencies having been explained, what are the secondary afflictions? The verse says:

隨煩惱此餘，染心所行蘊。

The secondary afflictions are the others, the mental factors that act as defiled aggregates.

論曰：此諸煩惱亦名隨煩惱，以皆隨心為惱亂事故。復有此餘異諸煩惱，染汙心所行蘊所攝，隨煩惱起故亦名隨煩惱，不名煩惱非根本故。廣列彼相如雜事中，後當略論。纏煩惱垢攝者，且應先辯纏相云何。頌曰：

The treatise says: These afflictions are also called secondary afflictions, because they all follow the mind in troubling and disturbing it. Moreover, there are others different from these afflictions, included in the aggregate of formations as defiled mental factors, which are also called secondary afflictions because they arise following the afflictions, and are not called afflictions because they are not root. Their characteristics are listed at length in the section on miscellaneous matters and will be briefly discussed later. As for what is included among the entanglements and the afflictions' stains, we should first explain the characteristics of the entanglements. The verse says:

纏八無慚愧，嫉慳並悔眠，

The entanglements are eight: shamelessness, lack of embarrassment, envy, miserliness, remorse, drowsiness,

及掉舉惛沈，或十加忿覆。

restlessness and torpor; or ten, adding anger and concealment.

無慚慳掉舉，皆從貪所生，

Shamelessness, miserliness and restlessness all arise from craving,

無愧眠惛沈，從無明所起，

lack of embarrassment, drowsiness and torpor arise from ignorance,

嫉忿從瞋起，悔從疑覆諍。

envy and anger arise from hatred, remorse from doubt, and concealment from contention.

論曰：根本煩惱亦名為纏，經說欲貪纏為緣故。然《品類足》說有八纏，毘婆沙宗說纏有十，謂於前八更加忿、覆。無慚、無愧如前已釋。嫉謂於他諸興盛事令心不喜。慳謂財法巧施相違令心悋著。悔即惡作，如前已辯。眠謂令心昧略為性，無有功力執持於身。悔、眠二纏唯取染汙。掉舉、惛沈亦如前釋。除瞋及害於情非情令心憤發說名為忿。隱藏自罪說名為覆。於此所說十種纏中，無慚、慳、掉舉是貪等流，無愧、眠、惛沈是無明等流，嫉、忿是瞋等流，悔是疑等流。有說：覆是貪等流。有說：是無明等流。有說：是俱等流。有知無知，如其次第。餘煩惱垢其相云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The root afflictions are also called entanglements, since a sutra speaks of the entanglement of craving for desire as a condition. However, the Prakaranapada speaks of eight entanglements, and the Vaibhashika school says that there are ten, adding anger and concealment to the earlier eight. Shamelessness and lack of embarrassment have been explained above. Envy means the mind's displeasure at the prosperity of others. Miserliness means the mind's stinginess and clinging, opposed to skillful giving of wealth and Dharma. Remorse is regret, as explained earlier. Drowsiness means a mind that is dark and cramped by nature and has no strength to hold the body. The two entanglements of remorse and drowsiness are taken as defiled only. Restlessness and torpor are as explained earlier. Apart from hatred and harmfulness, the stirring up of the mind in indignation at sentient or non-sentient things is called anger. Hiding one's own faults is called concealment. Among the ten entanglements spoken of here, shamelessness, miserliness and restlessness are outflows of craving; lack of embarrassment, drowsiness and torpor are outflows of ignorance; envy and anger are outflows of hatred; and remorse is an outflow of doubt. Some say that concealment is an outflow of craving, some that it is an outflow of ignorance, and some that it is an outflow of both, according to whether one knows or does not know. What are the characteristics of the other stains of affliction? The verse says:

煩惱垢六惱，害恨諂誑憍，

The stains of affliction are six: vexation, harmfulness, resentment, flattery, deceit and arrogance,

誑憍從貪生，害恨從瞋起，

deceit and arrogance arise from craving, harmfulness and resentment arise from hatred,

惱從見取起，諂從諸見生。

vexation arises from grasping at views, and flattery arises from the various views.

論曰：惱謂堅執諸有罪事，由此不取如理諫誨。害謂於他能為逼迫，由此能行打罵等事。恨謂於忿所緣事中，數數尋思結怨不捨。諂謂心曲，由此不能如實自顯，或矯非撥、或設方便令解不明。誑謂惑他。憍前已釋。如是六種從煩惱生，穢汙相麁名煩惱垢。於此六種煩惱垢中，誑、憍是貪等流，害、恨是瞋等流，惱是見取等流，諂是諸見等流。如言何曲？謂諸惡見，故諂定是諸見等流，此垢並纏從煩惱起，是故皆立隨煩惱名。此垢及纏為何所斷？頌曰：

The treatise says: Vexation means stubbornly clinging to blameworthy things, and because of it one does not accept reasonable admonition. Harmfulness means being able to oppress others, and because of it one commits beating, scolding and the like. Resentment means repeatedly dwelling on the matter that was the object of anger, holding a grudge and not letting go. Flattery means a crooked mind, because of which one cannot show oneself truthfully, or one feigns and denies, or devises means to keep others from understanding clearly. Deceit means misleading others. Arrogance has been explained earlier. These six arise from afflictions, and because their defilement is coarse in aspect they are called the stains of affliction. Among these six stains, deceit and arrogance are outflows of craving, harmfulness and resentment are outflows of hatred, vexation is an outflow of grasping at views, and flattery is an outflow of the various views. As it is said, what is crooked? It is the evil views, so flattery is certainly an outflow of the various views. These stains and the entanglements arise from afflictions, and for that reason are all given the name secondary afflictions. By what are these stains and entanglements cut off? The verse says:

纏無慚愧眠，惛掉見修斷，

The entanglements of shamelessness, lack of embarrassment, drowsiness, torpor and restlessness are cut off by seeing and cultivation,

餘及煩惱垢，自在故唯修。

the others and the stains of affliction, because they arise at will, are cut off by cultivation only.

論曰：且十纏中無慚等五通見修斷，由此通與二部煩惱相應起故。隨與見此諦所斷相應，即說名為見此諦所斷。餘嫉、慳、悔、忿、覆並垢，自在起故，唯修所斷。唯與修斷他力無明共相應故，名自在起。此隨煩惱誰通何性？頌曰：

The treatise says: Among the ten entanglements, the five beginning with shamelessness are cut off both by seeing and by cultivation, because they arise in association with the afflictions of both groups. According to the associated affliction to be cut off by seeing a given truth, they are said to be cut off by seeing that truth. The others, envy, miserliness, remorse, anger and concealment together with the stains, arise at will and are cut off only by cultivation. Because they are associated only with ignorance, which is to be cut off by cultivation and has others' power in common, they are called arising at will. Which of these secondary afflictions extend to which natures? The verse says:

欲三二餘惡，上界皆無記。

In the desire realm three are of two natures, the others are evil; in the upper realms all are neutral.

論曰：欲界所繫眠、惛、掉三，皆通不善、無記二性，所餘一切皆唯不善。上二界中隨應所有，一切唯是無記性攝。此隨煩惱誰何界繫？頌曰：

The treatise says: The three of drowsiness, torpor and restlessness bound to the desire realm all extend to the two natures of unwholesome and neutral, and all the rest are only unwholesome. In the upper two realms, all that exist as appropriate are included only in the neutral nature. Which secondary afflictions are bound to which realms? The verse says:

諂誑欲初定，三三界餘欲。

Flattery and deceit are in the desire realm and first concentration; three are in the three realms, the others in desire.

論曰：諂、誑唯在欲界初定。寧知梵世有諂誑耶？以大梵王匿己情事，現相誑惑馬勝苾芻。此二於前雖已分別，義相應故今復重辯。惛、掉、憍三通在三界，所餘一切皆唯在欲。謂十六中五如前辯，所餘十一唯欲界繫。已辯隨眠及隨煩惱。於中有幾唯在意地？有幾通依六識地起？頌曰：

The treatise says: Flattery and deceit exist only in the desire realm and in the first concentration. How do we know that there are flattery and deceit in the Brahma world? Because the Mahabrahma king concealed his own affairs and deceived the monk Ashvajit. These two have already been analyzed above, but are repeated here for the sake of the association of meaning. Torpor, restlessness and arrogance extend to the three realms, and all the rest exist only in the desire realm. That is, of the sixteen, five are as explained before, and the other eleven are bound only to the desire realm. The latent tendencies and secondary afflictions have been explained. Of these, how many exist only on the mental ground, and how many arise relying on all six consciousnesses? The verse says:

見所斷慢眠，自在隨煩惱，

Pride, drowsiness and the latent tendencies cut off by seeing, and secondary afflictions that arise at will,

皆唯意地起，餘通依六識。

all arise only on the mental ground; the others extend to reliance on the six consciousnesses.

論曰：略說應知諸見所斷及修所斷。一切慢眠隨煩惱中自在起者，如是一切皆依意識，依五識身無容起故。所餘一切通依六識，謂修所斷貪瞋無明及彼相應諸隨煩惱，即無慚愧、惛、掉及餘大煩惱地法所攝隨煩惱，依六識身皆容起故。如先所辯樂等五受根，今此所明煩惱隨煩惱，何煩惱等何根相應？於此先應辯諸煩惱。頌曰：

The treatise says: Briefly, it should be known that all those cut off by seeing and by cultivation, and among all pride, drowsiness and secondary afflictions those that arise at will, all rely on mental consciousness, since they cannot arise relying on the five groups of consciousness. All the others extend to reliance on the six consciousnesses; that is, among those cut off by cultivation, craving, hatred and ignorance and the secondary afflictions associated with them, namely shamelessness, lack of embarrassment, torpor, restlessness and the secondary afflictions included in the great-affliction-ground dharmas, can arise relying on the six groups of consciousness. As was explained earlier regarding the five feeling faculties of pleasure and so on, which afflictions and secondary afflictions that are now explained are associated with which faculties? Here the afflictions should be explained first. The verse says:

欲界諸煩惱，貪喜樂相應，

The afflictions of the desire realm: craving is associated with joy and pleasure,

瞋憂苦痴遍，邪見憂及喜，

hatred with sorrow and pain, ignorance with all, wrong views with sorrow and joy,

疑憂餘五喜，一切捨相應，

doubt with sorrow, the other five with joy, all associated with equanimity,

上地皆隨應，遍自識諸受。

in the higher grounds all as appropriate, extending to the feelings of their own consciousnesses.

論曰：欲界所繫諸煩惱中，貪喜樂相應，以歡行轉遍六識故。瞋憂苦相應，以慼行轉遍六識故。無明遍與前四相應，歡慼行轉遍六識故。邪見通與憂喜相應，歡慼行轉唯意地故。何緣邪見歡慼行轉？如次先造罪福業故。疑憂相應，以慼行轉唯意地故。懷猶預者求決定知心愁慼故。餘四見慢與喜相應，以歡行轉唯意地故。已約別相說受相應。就通相說受相應者，一切皆與捨受相應，以諸隨眠相續斷位勢力衰歇必住捨受。欲界既爾，上地云何？皆隨所應遍與自地自識俱起諸受相應。謂若地中具有四識，彼一一識所起煩惱，各遍自識諸受相應。若諸地中唯有意識，即彼意識所起煩惱，遍與意識識受相應。上諸地中識受多少，如前已辯，故不別說。已辯煩惱諸受相應，今次復應辯隨煩惱。頌曰：

The treatise says: Among the afflictions bound to the desire realm, craving is associated with joy and pleasure, since it operates as delight and extends to the six consciousnesses. Hatred is associated with sorrow and pain, since it operates as distress and extends to the six consciousnesses. Ignorance is universally associated with the preceding four, operating as delight and distress and extending to the six consciousnesses. Wrong views are generally associated with sorrow and joy, operating as delight and distress only on the mental ground. Why do wrong views operate as delight and distress? Because one has earlier committed evil or meritorious karma, respectively. Doubt is associated with sorrow, operating as distress only on the mental ground, because one in doubt is distressed in seeking a definite knowledge. The other four views and pride are associated with joy, operating as delight only on the mental ground. The association of feeling has been explained in terms of distinct characteristics. In terms of general characteristics, all are associated with neutral feeling, since when the continuum of the latent tendencies is cut off their strength weakens and they must abide in neutral feeling. If it is so in the desire realm, how is it in the higher grounds? All are associated with the feelings that arise together with their own ground's own consciousnesses, as appropriate. That is, if a ground has four consciousnesses, the afflictions arising from each consciousness are associated with all the feelings of their own consciousness; if a ground has only mental consciousness, the afflictions arising from that mental consciousness are associated with all the feelings of that consciousness. The number of feelings of consciousness in the higher grounds has been explained earlier and is not separately stated. The associations of afflictions with feelings having been explained, the secondary afflictions should now be explained. The verse says:

諸隨煩惱中，嫉悔忿及惱，

Among the secondary afflictions, envy, remorse, anger and vexation,

害恨憂俱起，慳喜受相應，

harmfulness and resentment arise with sorrow, miserliness is associated with joyful feeling,

諂誑及眠覆，通憂喜俱起，

flattery, deceit, drowsiness and concealment extend to arising with sorrow and joy,

憍喜樂皆捨，餘四遍相應。

arrogance with joy and pleasure, all with equanimity, and the other four are universally associated.

論曰：隨煩惱中嫉等六種，一切皆與憂根相應，以慼行轉唯意地故。慳喜相應，以歡行轉唯意地故。歡行轉者，慳相與貪極相似故。諂誑眠覆憂喜相應，歡慼行轉唯意地故。歡慼行者，謂或有時以歡喜心而行諂等，或時有以憂慼心行。憍喜樂相應，歡行唯意故。在第三靜慮與樂相應，若在下諸地與喜相應。此上所說諸隨煩惱，一切皆與捨受相應，相續斷時皆住捨故，有通行在唯捨地故。捨於一切相應無遮，譬如無明遍相應故。餘無慚愧、惛沈、掉舉四皆遍與五受相應，前二是大不善地法攝故，後二是大煩惱地法攝故。所說煩惱隨煩惱中，有依異門，佛說為蓋。今次應辯。蓋相云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Among the secondary afflictions, the six including envy are all associated with the faculty of sorrow, since they operate as distress only on the mental ground. Miserliness is associated with joy, since it operates as delight only on the mental ground; it operates as delight because the aspect of miserliness is extremely similar to craving. Flattery, deceit, drowsiness and concealment are associated with sorrow and joy, operating as delight and distress only on the mental ground; operating as delight and distress means that at times one practices flattery and the like with a joyful mind, and at times with a sorrowful mind. Arrogance is associated with joy and pleasure, operating as delight only on the mental ground; in the third dhyana it is associated with pleasure, and in the lower grounds with joy. All the secondary afflictions spoken of above are associated with neutral feeling, because when the continuum is cut off they abide in equanimity, and some operate in grounds of equanimity only. Equanimity is not prevented from being associated with any of them, just as ignorance is universally associated. The other four, shamelessness, lack of embarrassment, torpor and restlessness, are all universally associated with the five feelings, because the first two are included in the great unwholesome-ground dharmas and the latter two in the great-affliction-ground dharmas. Among the afflictions and secondary afflictions spoken of, there are some that the Buddha, relying on a different approach, called hindrances. These should now be explained. What are the characteristics of the hindrances? The verse says:

蓋五唯在欲，食治用同故，

The hindrances are five, only in the desire realm, because they have the same food, antidote and function,

雖二立一蓋，障蘊故唯五。

although two are established as one hindrance, because they obstruct the aggregates, there are only five.

論曰：佛於經中說蓋有五，一欲貪蓋、二瞋恚蓋、三惛眠蓋、四掉悔蓋、五疑蓋。此中所說惛掉及疑，為如欲貪瞋恚眠悔唯在欲界？通三界耶？應知此三亦唯在欲，以契經說如是五種純是圓滿不善聚故。色無色界無有不善，然此五種純不善故，唯在欲界非色無色。何故惛眠、掉悔二蓋各有二體合立一耶？食、治、用同，故合立一。食謂所食，亦名資糧。治謂能治，亦名非食。用謂事用，亦名功能。由此經中作如是說。惛眠雖二，食非食同。何等名為惛眠蓋食？謂五種法：一𧄼瞢、二不樂、三頻申、四食不平性、五心昧劣性。何等名為此蓋非食？謂光明想。如是二種事用亦同，謂俱能令心性沈昧。掉悔雖二，食非食同。何等名為掉悔蓋食？謂四種法：一親裡尋、二國土尋、三不死尋、四隨念昔種種所更戲笑歡娛承奉等事。何等名為此蓋非食？謂奢摩他。如是二種事用亦同，謂俱能令心不寂靜。由此說食、治、用同，故惛眠、掉悔二合為一。諸煩惱等皆有蓋義，何故如來唯說此五？唯此於五蘊能為勝障故。謂貪恚蓋能障戒蘊，惛沈睡眠能障慧蘊，掉舉惡作能障定蘊，定慧無故於四諦疑，疑故能令乃至解脫解脫智見皆不得起，故唯此五建立為蓋。若作如是解釋經意，掉悔理應惛眠前說，以必依定方有慧生，定障亦應先慧障故。依如是理，有餘師言：此五蓋中，惛眠、掉悔如次能障定蘊慧蘊，由此契經作如是說。修等持者怖畏惛眠，修擇法者怖畏掉悔。有餘別說：唯立五因。彼說云何？謂在行位，先於色等種種境中，取可愛憎二種相故，後在住位由先為因，便起欲貪、瞋恚二蓋。此二能障將入定心，由此後時正入定位，於止及觀不能正習。由此便起惛眠、掉悔，如其次第障奢摩他、毘缽舍那令不得起。由此於後出定位中思擇法時疑復為障，故建立蓋唯有此五。

The treatise says: The Buddha said in the sutras that there are five hindrances: first, the hindrance of desire-greed; second, the hindrance of ill will; third, the hindrance of torpor and sleep; fourth, the hindrance of restlessness and regret; and fifth, the hindrance of doubt. Of these, are torpor, restlessness, and doubt, like desire-greed, ill will, sleep, and regret, found only in the desire realm, or do they extend through the three realms? It should be understood that these three too are found only in the desire realm, because the sutra says that these five are purely a complete mass of the unwholesome. The form and formless realms have nothing unwholesome, and since these five are purely unwholesome, they exist only in the desire realm and not in the form and formless realms. Why are the two hindrances of torpor and sleep, and of restlessness and regret, each of two substances yet established together as one? Because their food, antidote, and function are the same, they are established together as one. Food means what nourishes, also called provision. Antidote means what counteracts, also called non-food. Function means practical use, also called capacity. Therefore the sutra says thus: although torpor and sleep are two, their food and non-food are the same. What is called the food of the hindrance of torpor and sleep? It is five kinds of dharmas: first, drowsiness; second, discontent; third, yawning; fourth, immoderation in eating; and fifth, a dull and weak state of mind. What is called the non-food of this hindrance? It is the perception of light. Their functions are likewise the same, namely both can make the nature of the mind sunken and obscure. Although restlessness and regret are two, their food and non-food are the same. What is called the food of the hindrance of restlessness and regret? It is four kinds of dharmas: first, thoughts of relatives; second, thoughts of one's country; third, thoughts of immortality; and fourth, recollection of the various things one formerly experienced, such as amusement, joy, and attendance. What is called the non-food of this hindrance? It is shamatha. Their functions are likewise the same, namely both can make the mind not calm. Because food, antidote, and function are the same, torpor and sleep are joined as one, and restlessness and regret likewise. All afflictions and the like have the meaning of hindrance; why does the Tathagata speak of only these five? Because only these can be the main obstacles to the five aggregates. Greed and ill will hinder the aggregate of morality; torpor and sleep hinder the aggregate of wisdom; restlessness and regret hinder the aggregate of concentration; and doubt about the four truths, because there is no concentration or wisdom, can prevent even liberation and the knowledge and vision of liberation from arising; so only these five are established as hindrances. If the sutra's meaning is explained this way, restlessness and regret should logically be stated before torpor and sleep, since wisdom arises only in dependence on concentration, and the obstruction of concentration should come before that of wisdom. By this reasoning, some other masters say: among these five hindrances, torpor and sleep, and restlessness and regret, respectively hinder the aggregates of concentration and wisdom, and so the sutra speaks this way: one who cultivates concentration fears torpor and sleep, and one who cultivates the discernment of dharmas fears restlessness and regret. Others say separately: only five causes are established. What do they say? They say that when in the stage of practice, one first grasps lovely and hateful characteristics in various objects such as form, and later, in the stage of abiding, with that as cause, the two hindrances of desire-greed and ill will arise. These two hinder the mind that is about to enter concentration, and so later, when one is actually entering concentration, one cannot properly practice calming and insight. Thereupon torpor and sleep, and restlessness and regret, arise, and in that order hinder shamatha and vipashyana (insight), so that they cannot arise. Then, afterward, when one is reflecting on the dharma after emerging from concentration, doubt again becomes an obstacle; therefore the hindrances are established as only these five.

今應思擇，他界遍行及見滅道斷有漏緣，諸惑於彼斷位不知彼所緣，知彼所緣時而彼不斷。如是諸惑斷由何因？非要遍知所緣故斷。若爾，斷惑總由幾因？由四種因。何等為四？頌曰：

Now it should be considered: the afflictions that operate everywhere in other realms, and those that take defiled objects eliminated by seeing cessation and the path, are not known to be eliminated at the stage of elimination with regard to their objects; when their objects are known, those afflictions are not eliminated. By what cause are such afflictions eliminated? It is not that they are eliminated because the objects must be fully known. If so, how many causes are there in all for the elimination of afflictions? Four kinds of causes. What are the four? The verse says:

遍知所緣故，斷彼能緣故，

Because the object is fully known, because the subject that takes it is eliminated,

斷彼所緣故，對治起故斷。

because its object is eliminated, and because the antidote arises, there is elimination.

論曰：且見所斷惑，斷由前三因：一由遍知所緣故斷，謂見苦集斷自界緣，及見滅道斷無漏緣。二由斷彼能緣故斷，謂見苦集斷他界緣，以自界緣能緣於彼，能緣若斷彼隨斷故。三由斷彼所緣故斷，謂見滅道斷有漏緣，以無漏緣能為彼境，所緣若斷彼隨斷故。若修所斷惑，斷由後一因，謂但由第四對治起故斷。以若此品對治道生，則此品中諸惑頓斷。何品諸惑誰為對治？謂上上品所有諸惑，下下品道能為對治；至下下品所有諸惑，上上品道能為對治。如是義門後當廣辯。所言對治總有幾種？頌曰：

The treatise says: First, for afflictions eliminated by seeing, elimination is by the first three causes. One, elimination because the object is fully known, namely afflictions eliminated by seeing suffering and the origin that take objects of their own realm, and those eliminated by seeing cessation and the path that take undefiled objects. Two, elimination because what takes them is eliminated, namely afflictions eliminated by seeing suffering and the origin that take objects of other realms; since afflictions of their own realm take them as objects, when what takes is eliminated, those are eliminated with it. Three, elimination because their object is eliminated, namely afflictions eliminated by seeing cessation and the path that take defiled objects; since undefiled afflictions can be the object of those, when the object is eliminated, those are eliminated with it. As for afflictions eliminated by cultivation, elimination is by the last cause, namely only by the fourth, the arising of the antidote. For if the antidote path of this grade arises, all the afflictions of this grade are eliminated at once. What grade of afflictions has what as antidote? Afflictions of the highest of the high grades are countered by the path of the lowest of the low grade; the afflictions of the lowest of the low grade are countered by the path of the highest of the high grade. This principle will be analyzed at length later. How many kinds of antidote are there in all? The verse says:

對治有四種，謂斷持遠厭。

There are four kinds of antidote: elimination, sustaining, distancing, and aversion.

論曰：諸對治門總有四種：一斷對治，謂無間道。二持對治，謂此後道，由彼能持此斷得故。三遠分對治，謂解脫道後所有道，由彼道能令此所斷惑得更遠故。有餘師說：亦解脫道，以解脫道如彼能令此所斷惑得更遠故。四厭患對治，謂若有道見此界過失深生厭患。然此對治若欲善說，理實應為如是次第：一厭患對治，謂緣苦集起加行道。二斷對治，謂緣一切起無間道。三持對治，謂緣一切起解脫道。四遠分對治，謂緣一切起勝進道。諸惑永斷為定從何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The antidotes are of four kinds in all: first, the antidote of elimination, namely the path of no interval. Second, the antidote of sustaining, namely the path that follows, since it can sustain this elimination once attained. Third, the antidote of distancing, namely all paths after the path of liberation, since by those paths the afflictions eliminated here are made more distant. Other masters say that the path of liberation also does this, since the path of liberation can likewise make the afflictions eliminated here more distant. Fourth, the antidote of aversion, namely a path in which one sees the faults of this realm and deeply feels aversion. However, if one wished to explain this antidote well, in truth it should be in this order: first, the antidote of aversion, namely the path of effort that takes suffering and the origin as objects; second, the antidote of elimination, namely the path of no interval that takes everything as its object; third, the antidote of sustaining, namely the path of liberation that takes everything as its object; and fourth, the antidote of distancing, namely the path of advancement that takes everything as its object. From what are the afflictions permanently eliminated? The verse says:

應知從所緣，可令諸惑斷。

It should be understood that it is from the object that the afflictions can be made to be eliminated.

論曰：應知諸惑得永斷時，不可令其離相應法，但可令彼遠離所緣，令於所緣不復生故。斷未來惑理且可然，容令於境不復生故。過去諸惑云何說斷？若謂頌說從所緣言，意顯遍知所緣故斷。此亦非理，不決定故。由此應說，煩惱等斷定何所從，自相續中煩惱等斷由得斷故。他相續中諸煩惱等，及一切色不染法斷，由能緣彼自相續中所有諸惑究竟斷故。所言遠分，遠性有幾？頌曰：

The treatise says: It should be understood that when the afflictions are permanently eliminated, they cannot be made to leave the associated dharmas, but can be made to leave the object, so that they no longer arise toward the object. The elimination of future afflictions is reasonably so, since they can be made not to arise again in regard to the object. How is the elimination of past afflictions said to be? If it is said that the phrase from the object in the verse means to show elimination by fully knowing the object, this too is unreasonable, because it is not definite. Therefore it should be said: from what are the afflictions and the rest eliminated? In one's own continuum, afflictions and the rest are eliminated by the attainment of elimination. In the continua of others, afflictions and the rest, and all undefiled dharmas of form, are eliminated because the afflictions in one's own continuum that take them as objects are ultimately eliminated. As for what is called distant, how many kinds of distance are there? The verse says:

遠性有四種，謂相治處時，

There are four kinds of distance: of characteristic, of antidote, of place, and of time,

如大種屍羅，異方二世等。

as with the great elements, with morality, with different directions, and with the two times, and the like.

論曰：傳說遠性總有四種：一相遠性，如四大種，雖復俱在一聚中生，以相異故亦名為遠。二治遠性，如持犯戒，雖復俱在一身中行，以相治故亦名為遠。三處遠性，如東西海，雖復俱在一世界中，方處隔故亦名為遠。四時遠性，如過未世，雖復俱依一法上立，時分隔故亦名為遠。望何說遠？望現在世。無間已滅及正生時與現相隣，如何名遠？由世性別故得遠名，非久曾當方得名遠。若爾，現在亦應得遠名，以望去來世性亦別故。若謂去來法無作用，離作用故名為遠者，諸無為法作用說無，云何名近？若謂由現遍得無為故名近者，去來二世例亦應然。虛空無為如何名近？若謂過未更互相望，由隔現在故名為遠。現望二世俱極相隣，無為無隔故皆近者，則應去來隣現在世，相望有隔故具二名，不應一向說名為遠。若依正理，應說去來離法自相故名為遠，未來未得法自相故、過去已捨法自相故。等言為明舉事未盡，前言惑斷由治道生，道勝進時所斷諸惑為再斷不？所得離繫有重得耶？頌曰：

The treatise says: It is said that distance is of four kinds in all. First, distance of characteristic, as with the four great elements: although they arise together in one cluster, because their characteristics differ they are also called distant. Second, distance of antidote, as with keeping and violating precepts: although they act together in one body, because they counteract each other they are also called distant. Third, distance of place, as with the eastern and western seas: although they are in one world, because they are separated in direction and place they are also called distant. Fourth, distance of time, as with the past and the future: although both are established on one dharma, because they are separated in time they are also called distant. In relation to what is distance spoken of? In relation to the present. What has just ceased without interval and what is just arising are adjacent to the present; how can they be called distant? They are called distant because the natures of the times differ, not because it was long ago or will be long hence. If so, the present too should be called distant, since in relation to the past and future its time-nature also differs. If it is said that past and future dharmas have no function and are called distant because they are apart from function, then the functions of unconditioned dharmas are said to be nil; how can they be called near? If it is said that they are called near because the present universally obtains the unconditioned, then the past and future should be treated likewise. How can space, an unconditioned dharma, be called near? If it is said that the past and future are called distant from each other because the present lies between them, whereas the present is extremely adjacent to both, and the unconditioned, having no separation, is near to all, then the past and future, which are adjacent to the present but separated from each other, would have both names, and should not be called only distant. According to correct reasoning, one should say that the past and future are called distant because they are apart from the dharmas' own characteristics: the future has not yet obtained the dharma's own characteristic, and the past has already abandoned the dharma's own characteristic. The word "and so on" is to make clear that the list of items is not exhausted. It was said earlier that the afflictions are eliminated by the arising of the antidote path; when the path advances, are the afflictions already eliminated eliminated again? Is there a repeated attainment of the disjunction already obtained? The verse says:

諸惑無再斷，離繫有重得，

There is no second elimination of the afflictions, but there is repeated attainment of disjunction,

謂治生得果，練根六時中。

namely when the antidote arises, when the fruit is attained, and when the faculties are refined, in six times.

論曰：諸惑若得彼能斷道，即由彼道此惑頓斷，必無後時再斷惑義。所得離繫雖無隨道漸勝進理，而道進時容有重起彼勝得義。所言重得總有幾時？總有六時。何等為六？謂治道起得果練根。治道起時，謂解脫道。得果時者，謂得預流、一來、不還、阿羅漢果。練根時者，謂轉根時。此六時中，諸惑離繫隨道勝進重起勝得。然諸離繫隨應當知，有具六時起勝得者，乃至亦有唯具二時。謂欲界繫見四諦斷，及色無色見三諦斷，所有離繫具六時得；色無色界見道諦斷，所有離繫唯五時得，由治生時即得果故。不應於此分為二時，欲界修斷五品離繫亦五時得，除預流果。第六離繫唯四時得，謂於前五又除一時，得果、治生時無異故。第七八品亦四時得，得果四中除前二故。第九離繫唯三時得，謂於前四又除一時，亦治生時即得果故。色無色界修所斷中，唯除有頂第九離繫；所餘離繫亦三時得，得果四中除前三故。有頂第九唯二時得，謂前三內又除一時，亦治生時即得果故。如是且說容有理說。以利根者前諸位中一一皆除練根得故，諸有超越入聖道者，隨應有除預流等故，即諸離繫彼彼位中得遍知名。遍知有二：一智遍知、二斷遍知。智遍知者，謂無漏智。斷遍知者，謂即諸斷，此於果上立因名故。為一切斷立一遍知？不爾。云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: If the afflictions have met the path that can eliminate them, those afflictions are eliminated at once by that path, and there is certainly no meaning of eliminating the afflictions again at a later time. Although the disjunction attained has no principle of gradually advancing with the path, when the path advances there may be the meaning of arising a superior attainment of it again. How many times are there of repeated attainment? Six in all. What are the six? The times of the arising of the antidote path, of attaining the fruit, and of refining the faculties. The time of the arising of the antidote path is the path of liberation. The time of attaining the fruit is the attainment of the fruits of stream-enterer, once-returner, non-returner, and arhat. The time of refining the faculties is when the faculties are changed. In these six times, as the path advances the disjunction of the afflictions again gives rise to a superior attainment. However, it should be known that, among the disjunctions, some obtain superior attainments in all six times, and some in only two. That is, the disjunctions of the desire realm eliminated by seeing the four truths, and of the form and formless realms eliminated by seeing three truths, are obtained in all six times; the disjunctions of the form and formless realms eliminated by seeing the truth of the path are obtained in only five times, because at the arising of the antidote the fruit is attained at once. One should not divide this into two times. The disjunction of the five grades of the desire realm eliminated by cultivation is also obtained in five times, omitting stream-enterer. The sixth disjunction is obtained in only four times, namely omitting one more time from the previous five, since there is no difference between attaining the fruit and the arising of the antidote. The seventh and eighth grades are also obtained in four times, because of the four times of attaining fruit the first two are omitted. The ninth disjunction is obtained in only three times, namely omitting one more from the previous four, since here too the fruit is attained at the arising of the antidote. Among those of the form and formless realms eliminated by cultivation, only the ninth disjunction of the peak of existence is excepted; the other disjunctions are also obtained in three times, because of the four times of attaining fruit the first three are omitted. The ninth of the peak of existence is obtained in only two times, namely omitting one more from the previous three, since here too the fruit is attained at the arising of the antidote. This has been said as what is reasonably possible. For those of sharp faculties, the refining of the faculties is omitted in each of the earlier stages; and for those who leap over and enter the noble path, stream-enterer and the like should be omitted accordingly; that is, in each of those stages the disjunctions obtain the name of full knowledge. Full knowledge is of two kinds: first, full knowledge by wisdom; second, full knowledge by elimination. Full knowledge by wisdom is undefiled wisdom. Full knowledge by elimination is the eliminations themselves, the name of cause being established on the result. Is one full knowledge established for every elimination? No. How then? The verse says:

斷遍知有九，欲初二斷一，

There are nine full knowledges of elimination: in the desire realm, the first two eliminations make one,

二各一合三，上界三亦爾，

and the other two each make one, together three; the higher realms are likewise three,

餘五順下分，色一切斷三。

and the other five accord with the lower portion; in form all eliminations make three.

論曰：諸斷總立九種遍知，謂三界繫見諦所斷煩惱等斷立六遍知，所餘三界修道所斷煩惱等斷立三遍知。且三界繫見諦所斷煩惱等斷立六云何？謂欲界繫初二部斷立一遍知，初二部言即顯見苦見集所斷。次二部斷各立一遍知，次二部言顯見滅道斷。如是欲界見諦所斷煩惱等斷立三遍知。如欲界三上界亦爾，謂色無色二界所繫，亦初二斷一二各一合三，是見苦集見滅見道所斷法斷合立三義。如是名為三界見諦所斷法斷六種遍知。餘三界繫修道所斷煩惱等斷立三云何？謂欲界繫修道所斷煩惱等斷立一遍知，應知即是五順下分結盡遍知，並前立故。色界所繫修道所斷煩惱等斷立一遍知，應知此即是色愛盡遍知。無色界繫修道所斷煩惱等斷立一遍知，即一切結永盡遍知。此亦並前合立一故。如是名為三界修道所斷法斷三種遍知。以何因緣色無色界修道所斷煩惱等斷別立遍知非見所斷？以修所斷治不同故。如是所立九種遍知，應辯於中幾何道果？頌曰：

The treatise says: In all, nine full knowledges are established for the eliminations: for the elimination of afflictions and the rest of the three realms eliminated by seeing the truths, six full knowledges are established, and for the elimination of the other afflictions of the three realms eliminated by the path of cultivation, three full knowledges are established. How are six established for the elimination of afflictions of the three realms eliminated by seeing the truths? For the elimination of the first two divisions of the desire realm, one full knowledge is established; the words first two divisions mean those eliminated by seeing suffering and by seeing the origin. For the elimination of each of the next two divisions, one full knowledge is established; the words next two divisions mean those eliminated by seeing cessation and the path. Thus for the elimination of afflictions eliminated by seeing the truths in the desire realm, three full knowledges are established. As with the three of the desire realm, so with the higher realms: in the form and formless realms too, the first two eliminations make one, and the other two each make one, three in total, meaning that the dharmas eliminated by seeing suffering and the origin, those by seeing cessation, and those by seeing the path are joined to establish three. These are called the six kinds of full knowledge of the elimination of the three realms by seeing the truths. How are three established for the elimination of the other afflictions of the three realms eliminated by the path of cultivation? For the elimination of afflictions eliminated by cultivation belonging to the desire realm, one full knowledge is established; it should be known that this is the full knowledge of the exhaustion of the five lower fetters, established together with the preceding. For the elimination of afflictions eliminated by cultivation belonging to the form realm, one full knowledge is established; it should be known that this is the full knowledge of the exhaustion of love of form. For the elimination of afflictions eliminated by cultivation belonging to the formless realm, one full knowledge is established, namely the full knowledge of the permanent exhaustion of all fetters; this too is established together with the preceding. These are called the three kinds of full knowledge of the elimination of dharmas eliminated by cultivation in the three realms. For what reason are separate full knowledges established for the elimination of afflictions eliminated by cultivation in the form and formless realms, and not for those eliminated by seeing? Because the antidotes for those eliminated by cultivation differ. Of the nine full knowledges thus established, which paths and fruits does each correspond to? The verse says:

於中忍果六，餘三是智果，

Among them, the fruit of acceptance is six; the other three are the fruit of knowledge;

未至果一切，根本五或八，

the fruit of the preliminary stage is all; of the root stage, five or eight;

無色邊果一，三根本亦爾，

the fruit of the border of the formless is one; the three root stages are likewise;

俗果二聖九，法智三類二，

the fruit of the worldly path is two, of the noble path nine; of dharma knowledge three, of subsequent knowledge two;

法智品果六，類智品果五。

the fruit of the class of dharma knowledge is six; the fruit of the class of subsequent knowledge is five.

論曰：於此九中且應先辯與忍智道為果差別。忍果有六，謂三界繫見斷法斷六種遍知。智果有三，謂順下分色愛一切結盡遍知，由此三遍知是修道果故。如何忍果說為遍知？諸忍皆是智眷屬故，如王眷屬假立王名。或忍與智同一果故。今次應辯與靜慮地眷屬根本為果差別。未至靜慮果具有九，謂此為依能斷三界見修所斷煩惱等故。根本靜慮果五或八。所言五者，毘婆沙師說根本地唯能永斷色無色攝煩惱等故，欲界所繫煩惱等斷彼唯許是未至果故。所言八者，尊者妙音說根本地亦與欲界諸煩惱等為斷對治。諸有先離欲界染者，依根本地入見諦時，於欲界繫見斷法斷，許別道引無漏得故，由此亦是彼見道果。除順下分結盡遍知，以彼唯是未至果故，無容修彼斷對治故。中間靜慮如根本說。今次應辯與無色地眷屬根本為果差別。無色邊地果唯有一，謂依空處近分地道得色愛盡遍知果故。前三根本果亦唯一，謂依無色前三根本得一切盡遍知果故。今次應辯與世俗道及諸聖道為果差別。俗道果二，謂俗道力唯能獲得順下分盡及色愛盡遍知果故。聖道果九，謂聖道力遍能永斷三界法故。今次應辯與法類智為果差別。法智果三，謂法智力能斷三界修所斷故，得後三果。類智果二，謂類智力但能永斷色無色界修所斷故，得後二果。今次應辯與法類智同品諸道為果差別。法智品果六，謂即是前法智、法忍所得六果。類智品果五，謂即是前類智、類忍所得五果。品言通攝智及忍故。何故一一斷不別立遍知，唯就如前九位建立？頌曰：

The treatise says: Among these nine, one should first discuss the differences in being the fruit of the paths of acceptance and knowledge. The fruit of acceptance is six, namely the six full knowledges of the elimination of dharmas eliminated by seeing in the three realms. The fruit of knowledge is three, namely the full knowledges of the exhaustion of the lower fetters, of love of form, and of all fetters, since these three full knowledges are the fruit of the path of cultivation. How are the fruits of acceptance called full knowledge? Because the acceptances are all attendants of knowledge, just as the attendants of a king are provisionally given the name of king. Or because acceptance and knowledge have one and the same fruit. Next one should discuss the differences in being the fruit of the root stage and its attendant stages of the meditation grounds. The fruit of the preliminary meditation stage has all nine, since relying on it one can eliminate the afflictions and the rest eliminated by seeing and cultivation of the three realms. The fruit of the root meditation stage is five or eight. As for five: the Vibhasha masters say that the root ground can permanently eliminate only afflictions included in the form and formless realms, and elimination of afflictions belonging to the desire realm is admitted only as the fruit of the preliminary stage. As for eight: the Venerable Miaoyin says that the root ground also serves as the antidote for the elimination of the afflictions of the desire realm. For those who previously became free of defilement of the desire realm and who, relying on the root ground, enter seeing the truths, a separate path is admitted to draw forth the undefiled attainment of the elimination of dharmas belonging to the desire realm eliminated by seeing, and so this too is the fruit of their path of seeing. The full knowledge of the exhaustion of the lower fetters is excluded, since that is only the fruit of the preliminary stage, because there is no room to cultivate an antidote for its elimination. The intermediate meditation is as described for the root stage. Next one should discuss the differences in being the fruit of the root stage and its attendant stages of the formless grounds. The fruit of the border ground of the formless realm is only one, namely the full knowledge of the exhaustion of love of form, obtained by the path relying on the access ground of the sphere of space. The fruit of the first three root stages is also only one, namely the full knowledge of the exhaustion of all fetters obtained by relying on the first three root stages of the formless realm. Next one should discuss the differences in being the fruit of the worldly path and of the noble paths. The fruit of the worldly path is two, since the power of the worldly path can obtain only the full knowledges of the exhaustion of the lower fetters and of love of form. The fruit of the noble path is nine, since the power of the noble path can permanently eliminate dharmas of all three realms. Next one should discuss the differences in being the fruit of dharma knowledge and subsequent knowledge. The fruit of dharma knowledge is three, since the power of dharma knowledge can eliminate what is eliminated by cultivation in the three realms, obtaining the last three fruits. The fruit of subsequent knowledge is two, since the power of subsequent knowledge can only permanently eliminate what is eliminated by cultivation in the form and formless realms, obtaining the last two fruits. Next one should discuss the differences in being the fruit of the paths of the same class as dharma knowledge and subsequent knowledge. The fruit of the class of dharma knowledge is six, namely the six fruits obtained by dharma knowledge and dharma acceptance mentioned above. The fruit of the class of subsequent knowledge is five, namely the five fruits obtained by subsequent knowledge and subsequent acceptance mentioned above. The word class includes both knowledge and acceptance. Why is full knowledge not established separately for each elimination, but only for the nine stages as above? The verse says:

得無漏斷得，及缺第一有，

Attainment of undefiled elimination, and lacking the first existence,

滅雙因越界，故立九遍知。

extinction of the paired causes, and crossing the realm: therefore nine full knowledges are established.

論曰：有漏法斷雖多體位，而四緣故立九遍知，且由三緣立六忍果，謂得無漏離繫得故、缺有頂故、滅雙因故。諸斷要具如是三緣立遍知名，闕則不爾。如異生位有滅雙因，無無漏斷得，未缺有頂故，雖亦得斷不名遍知。若聖位中從入見諦至苦類忍現行以前，雖有已得無漏斷得，未缺有頂、未滅雙因，至苦類智集法忍位，雖亦缺有頂猶未滅雙因，未滅見集斷諸遍行因故。至後法智類智位中諸所得斷，三緣具故，於一一位建立遍知，具由四緣立三智果，謂於前三加越界故。言越界者，謂此界中煩惱等法皆全離故。有立離俱繫亦是一緣故，立遍知緣總有五種。離俱繫者，謂此雖斷未立遍知，要離所餘緣此境或方可建立。此離俱繫與滅雙因及越界緣，用無別故，雖義有異而不別說。雖諸越界位皆滅雙因，而滅雙因時非皆越界故，滅雙因外別立越界緣，滅三地雙因未立遍知故。誰成就幾遍知？頌曰：

The treatise says: Although the elimination of defiled dharmas has many substances and stages, nine full knowledges are established on account of four conditions; and among them, six fruits of acceptance are established through three conditions, namely the attainment of undefiled disjunction, the lack of the peak of existence, and the extinction of the paired causes. Eliminations must have these three conditions to be named full knowledge; without them they are not. For instance, in the stage of an ordinary being there is extinction of the paired causes but no attainment of undefiled elimination and the peak of existence is not lacking, so although elimination is also obtained it is not called full knowledge. In the noble stage, from entering seeing the truths until the manifestation of the acceptance of the class of suffering, although undefiled elimination has already been attained, the peak of existence is not lacking and the paired causes are not extinguished; at the stage of the knowledge of the class of suffering and the acceptance of the dharma of the origin, although the peak of existence is also lacking, the paired causes are still not extinguished, because the causes that operate everywhere and are eliminated by seeing the origin have not been extinguished. In the later stages of dharma knowledge and subsequent knowledge, the eliminations obtained have all three conditions, so full knowledge is established in each stage. For the three fruits of knowledge, the fruits are established through four conditions, namely adding crossing the realm to the preceding three. Crossing the realm means that the afflictions and other dharmas in this realm are all completely abandoned. Some hold that disjunction from conjunction is also a condition, so there are five conditions in all for establishing full knowledge. Disjunction from conjunction means that although this has been eliminated, full knowledge is not yet established; it can be established only after being free of other conditions taking this object. This disjunction from conjunction has no separate function from the extinction of the paired causes and the condition of crossing the realm, so although the meaning differs, it is not stated separately. Although in every stage of crossing the realm the paired causes are extinguished, not every extinction of the paired causes is a crossing of the realm, so crossing the realm is established as a separate condition apart from extinction of the paired causes; full knowledge is not established merely by extinguishing the paired causes of three grounds. Who possesses how many full knowledges? The verse says:

住見諦位無，或成一至五，

One dwelling in the stage of seeing the truths has none, or possesses one to five;

修成六一二，無學唯成一。

in cultivation one possesses six, one, or two; one beyond learning possesses only one.

論曰：異生定無成遍知理。若諸聖者住見諦位，從初乃至集法忍時，於諸遍知亦未成就。至集法智、集類忍時唯成就一。至集類智、滅法忍時便成就二。至滅法智、滅類忍時便成就三。至滅類智、道法忍時便成就四。至道法智、道類忍時便成就五。住修道位道類智為初，乃至未得全離欲界染及離欲退皆成就六。至全離欲色愛未盡，或先離欲從道類智未起色盡勝果道前，唯成一遍知，謂順下分盡。從色愛盡及無學位起色纏退亦一如前。有色愛者從色愛永盡，先離色者從起色盡道至未全離無色愛前成下分盡色愛盡二。從無學退起無色纏成二遍知，名如前說。住無學位唯成就一，謂一切結永盡遍知。何緣不還、阿羅漢果總集諸斷立一遍知？頌曰：

The treatise says: An ordinary being certainly cannot possess full knowledge. If noble ones dwell in the stage of seeing the truths, from the first up to the acceptance of the dharma of the origin, they do not yet possess any full knowledge. At the knowledge of the dharma of the origin and the acceptance of the class of the origin, they possess only one. At the knowledge of the class of the origin and the acceptance of the dharma of cessation, they possess two. At the knowledge of the dharma of cessation and the acceptance of the class of cessation, they possess three. At the knowledge of the class of cessation and the acceptance of the dharma of the path, they possess four. At the knowledge of the dharma of the path and the acceptance of the class of the path, they possess five. Dwelling in the path of cultivation, beginning with the knowledge of the class of the path, until they have not completely become free of defilement of the desire realm, and including falling back from freedom from desire, they possess six. Upon becoming completely free of desire while love of form is not yet exhausted, or one who earlier became free of desire, from the knowledge of the class of the path until the path of the superior fruit of the exhaustion of form has not arisen, possesses only one full knowledge, namely the exhaustion of the lower fetters. Falling back from the exhaustion of love of form and from the stage beyond learning, one who gives rise to form-realm entanglements is also one, as before. One who still has love of form, from the permanent exhaustion of love of form, and one who earlier became free of form, from the path of the exhaustion of form arising until not yet completely free of love of the formless, possess two, the exhaustion of the lower fetters and the exhaustion of love of form. From falling back from the stage beyond learning and giving rise to formless-realm entanglements, one possesses two full knowledges, named as before. One dwelling in the stage beyond learning possesses only one, namely the full knowledge of the permanent exhaustion of all fetters. For what reason are all eliminations gathered into one full knowledge for the fruits of non-returner and arhat? The verse says:

越界得果故，二處集遍知。

Because of crossing the realm and attaining the fruit, the full knowledges are gathered in two places.

論曰：具二緣故，於一切斷總集建立為一遍知：一者越界、二者得果。唯彼兩位具足二緣，故彼遍知總集為一。誰捨誰得幾種遍知？頌曰：

The treatise says: Because there are two conditions, all the eliminations are gathered together to establish one full knowledge: first, crossing the realm; second, attaining the fruit. Only in those two stages are the two conditions complete, so their full knowledges are gathered into one. Who abandons and who obtains how many full knowledges? The verse says:

捨一二五六，得亦然除五。

One abandons one, two, five, or six; one obtains likewise, except five.

論曰：言捨一者，謂從無學及色愛盡全離欲退。言捨二者，謂諸不還從色愛盡起欲纏退，及彼獲得阿羅漢時。言捨五者，謂先離欲後入見諦道類智時，得下分盡捨前五故。言捨六者，謂未離欲所有聖者得離欲時。得亦然者，謂有得一得二得六，唯除得五。言得一者，謂得未得，及從無學起色纏退。言得二者，謂從無學起無色界諸纏退時。言得六者，謂退不還。因辯隨眠，分別斷竟。

The treatise says: Abandoning one means falling back from the stage beyond learning and from the exhaustion of love of form, and from complete freedom from desire. Abandoning two means non-returners who, from the exhaustion of love of form, give rise to desire-realm entanglements and fall back, and when they attain arhatship. Abandoning five means one who earlier became free of desire and later enters seeing the truths at the knowledge of the class of the path; upon obtaining the exhaustion of the lower fetters, one abandons the previous five. Abandoning six means when any noble one not yet free of desire becomes free of desire. Obtaining is likewise: there is obtaining one, obtaining two, and obtaining six, only excepting obtaining five. Obtaining one means obtaining what was not yet obtained, and falling back from the stage beyond learning into form-realm entanglements. Obtaining two means falling back from the stage beyond learning when giving rise to the various entanglements of the formless realm. Obtaining six means a non-returner who falls back. Because of discussing the latent afflictions, the analysis of elimination is complete.

尊者世親造

Composed by the Venerable Vasubandhu

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang by imperial command

分別賢聖品第六之一

Chapter 6, Analysis of the Noble Ones, Part 1

如是已說煩惱等斷於九勝位得遍知名。然斷必由道力故得，此所由道其相云何？頌曰：

Thus it has been said that the elimination of afflictions and the rest obtains the name of full knowledge in nine superior stages. However, elimination is necessarily obtained by the power of the path; what are the characteristics of the path by which this is done? The verse says:

已說煩惱斷，由見諦修故，

It has been said that the elimination of afflictions is through seeing the truths and cultivation;

見道唯無漏，修道通二種。

the path of seeing is only undefiled, while the path of cultivation includes both kinds.

論曰：前已廣說諸煩惱斷，由見諦道及修道故。道唯無漏亦有漏耶？見道應知唯是無漏，修道通二。所以者何？見道速能治三界故。頓斷九品見所斷故，非世間道有此堪能，故見位中道唯無漏。修道有異故通二種，如向所言由見諦故。此所見諦其相云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The elimination of all afflictions was explained at length earlier as through the path of seeing the truths and the path of cultivation. Is the path only undefiled, or also defiled? It should be understood that the path of seeing is only undefiled, while the path of cultivation includes both. Why? Because the path of seeing swiftly counteracts the three realms and eliminates at once the nine grades eliminated by seeing; worldly paths have no such capacity, so the path in the stage of seeing is only undefiled. The path of cultivation differs, so it includes both kinds, as said earlier, because of seeing the truths. What are the characteristics of the truths seen here? The verse says:

諦四先已說，謂苦集滅道，

The four truths have been explained before, namely suffering, origin, cessation, and the path;

彼自體亦然，次第隨現觀。

their own natures are also so, and are realized in sequence.

論曰：諦有四種，名先已說。於何處說？謂初品中分別有漏無漏法處。彼如何說？謂彼頌言：無漏謂聖道，此說道諦。擇滅謂離繫，此說滅諦。及苦集世間，此說苦集諦。四諦次第如彼說耶？不爾。云何？如今所列：一苦、二集、三滅、四道。四諦自體亦有異耶？不爾。云何？如先所辯，為顯體同彼，故說亦然聲。四諦何緣如是次第？隨現觀位先後而說，謂現觀中先所觀者便在先說，若異此者應先說因後方說果。然或有法說次隨生，如念住等。或復有法說次隨便，如正勝等。謂此中無決定理趣起如是欲，先斷已生、後遮未生，但隨言便。今說四諦，隨瑜伽師現觀位中先後次第。何緣現觀次第必然？加行位中如是觀故。何緣加行必如是觀？謂若有法是愛著處能作逼惱，為求脫因，此法理應最初觀察，故修行者加行位中最初觀苦，苦即苦諦。次復觀苦以誰為因？便觀苦因，因即集諦。次復觀苦以誰為滅？便觀苦滅，滅即滅諦。後觀苦滅以誰為道？便觀滅道，道即道諦。如見病已，次尋病因，續思病癒，後求良藥。契經亦說諦次第喻。何契經說？謂《良醫經》。如彼經言：夫醫王者，謂具四德能拔毒箭：一善知病狀、二善知病因、三善知病癒、四善知良藥。如來亦爾，為大醫王，如實了知苦集滅道。故加行位如是次觀，現觀位中次第亦爾，由加行力所引發故，如已觀地縱馬奔馳。此現觀名為目何義？應知此目現等覺義。何緣說此唯是無漏？對向涅槃正覺境故，此覺真淨故得正名。應知此中果性取蘊名為苦諦，因性取蘊名為集諦，是能集故。由此苦集因果性分，名雖有殊非物有異。滅道二諦物亦有殊，何義經中說為聖諦？是聖者諦故得聖名。於非聖者此豈成妄？於一切是諦，性無顛倒故。然唯聖者實見非餘，是故經中但名聖諦。非非聖諦，顛倒見故。如有頌言：聖者說是樂，非聖說為苦；聖者說為苦，非聖說是樂。

The treatise says: There are four truths, whose names were stated earlier. Where were they stated? In the first chapter, in the analysis of tainted and untainted dharmas. How were they stated there? In that verse it says: the untainted is the noble path, which speaks of the truth of the path; cessation through deliberation is separation, which speaks of the truth of cessation; and suffering and origin are the world, which speaks of the truths of suffering and origin. Is the order of the four truths as stated there? No. How then? As now listed: first suffering, second origin, third cessation, fourth the path. Do the four truths also differ in their own substance? No. How then? As explained earlier, in order to show that the substance is the same as there, the word also was used. Why are the four truths in this order? They are spoken of according to the order in which they come in direct realization: what is observed first in direct realization is spoken of first; otherwise the cause should be spoken of first and the effect afterward. However, some dharmas are spoken of in the order in which they arise, such as the foundations of mindfulness, and some are spoken of in the order of convenience, such as the right efforts. That is, in the latter there is no fixed reason for the wish to first cut off what has arisen and then prevent what has not arisen, but one simply follows convenience in speech. Now the four truths are spoken of according to the order, in the yogin's direct realization, of what comes first and what later. Why must the order of direct realization be so? Because one observes in this way in the stage of preparation. Why must one observe in this way in preparation? If there is a dharma that is the object of attachment, can cause torment, and is sought to be escaped by a cause, one should by reason observe it first; therefore in the stage of preparatory practice one first observes suffering, and suffering is the truth of suffering. Next one observes by what suffering is caused, and observes the cause of suffering; the cause is the truth of origin. Next one observes by what suffering is ended, and observes the cessation of suffering; cessation is the truth of cessation. Last one observes by what the cessation of suffering is reached, and observes the path to cessation; the path is the truth of the path. It is like seeing a disease, then searching for its cause, then thinking of its cure, and finally seeking a good medicine. The sutras also give an analogy for the order of the truths. Which sutra? The Good Physician Sutra. As that sutra says: The king of physicians has four qualities that enable him to draw out poisoned arrows: first, he knows the symptoms of the illness well; second, he knows the cause of the illness well; third, he knows the cure of the illness well; fourth, he knows good medicine well. The Tathagata is likewise the great physician king, who knows suffering, origin, cessation and the path as they really are. Therefore one observes in this order in the stage of preparation, and in the stage of direct realization the order is also so, being induced by the power of preparation, like one who has already surveyed the ground and then gallops his horse. What does the term direct realization (abhisamaya) mean? It should be known that it means present, complete awakening. Why is it said to be only untainted? Because it faces nirvana, the object of right awakening, and this awakening is truly pure and so gains the name right. It should be known that here the aggregates of grasping that are of the nature of effect are called the truth of suffering, and the aggregates of grasping that are of the nature of cause are called the truth of origin, because they can accumulate. By this division of suffering and origin into cause and effect, although the names differ, the things are not different. The truths of cessation and the path also differ as things; why are they said in the sutras to be noble truths? Because they are the truths of the noble, they gain the name noble. Is this not false with regard to the non-noble? For all, they are truths, whose nature is without inversion. But only the noble truly see them and not others, and therefore in the sutras they are simply called noble truths. They are not non-noble truths, since the non-noble have inverted views. As a verse says: What the noble call pleasant, the non-noble call painful; what the noble call painful, the non-noble call pleasant.

有餘師說：二唯聖諦，餘二通是聖非聖諦。唯受一分是苦自體，所餘並非。如何可言諸有漏行皆是苦諦？頌曰：

Other teachers say: the latter two are only noble truths, and the other two extend to being noble or non-noble truths. Only a portion of feeling is the substance of suffering, and the rest are not. How can one say that all tainted formations are the truth of suffering? The verse says:

苦由三苦合，如所應一切，

Suffering is by the combination of three kinds of suffering, as appropriate for all,

可意非可意，餘有漏行法。

agreeable, disagreeable, and the other tainted formations.

論曰：有三苦性，一苦苦性、二行苦性、三壞苦性。諸有漏行如其所應，與此三種苦性合故，皆是苦諦亦無有失。此中可意有漏行法，與壞苦合故名為苦。諸非可意有漏行法，與苦苦合故名為苦。除此所餘有漏行法，與行苦合故名為苦。何謂為可意非可意餘？謂樂等三受如其次第，由三受力令順樂受等諸有漏行得可意等名。所以者何？若諸樂受由壞成苦性。如契經言。諸樂受生時樂住時樂壞時苦，若諸苦受由體成苦性。如契經言：諸苦受生時苦、住時苦。不苦不樂受由行成苦性，眾緣造故。如契經言：若非常即是苦。如受順受，諸行亦然。有餘師釋：苦即苦性名苦苦性，如是乃至行即苦性名行苦性。應知此中說可意非可意為壞苦苦苦者，由不共故。理實一切行苦故苦，此唯聖者所能觀見。故有頌言：

The treatise says: There are three natures of suffering: first the nature of suffering as pain, second the nature of suffering as formation, third the nature of suffering as change. Because all tainted formations, as appropriate, combine with these three natures of suffering, they are all the truth of suffering, and there is no fault. Among them, the agreeable tainted formations are called suffering because they combine with the suffering of change. The disagreeable tainted formations are called suffering because they combine with the suffering of pain. Other tainted formations apart from these are called suffering because they combine with the suffering of formation. What are agreeable, disagreeable and the others? They are the three feelings of pleasure and so on, in order, and by the force of the three feelings, the tainted formations that accord with pleasant feeling and so on gain the names agreeable and the rest. Why? Pleasant feelings become suffering by way of change. As a sutra says: pleasant feelings are pleasant when they arise, pleasant when they abide, and painful when they change. Painful feelings become suffering by their very substance. As a sutra says: painful feelings are painful when they arise and painful when they abide. Neither-painful-nor-pleasant feelings become suffering by way of formation, because they are made by many conditions. As a sutra says: whatever is impermanent is suffering. As feelings accord with feelings, so do the formations. Another explanation by other teachers: suffering that is itself suffering is called the nature of suffering as pain, and so on until formation that is itself suffering is called the nature of suffering as formation. It should be known that here agreeable and disagreeable are said to be the suffering of change and the suffering of pain because they are uncommon. In truth, all formations are suffering because they are formations, and this can be observed only by the noble. Therefore a verse says:

如以一睫毛，置掌人不覺，

As when a single eyelash is placed in the palm, a person does not notice it,

若置眼睛上，為損及不安。

but if it is placed on the eyeball, it causes harm and discomfort.

愚夫如手掌，不覺行苦睫，

The foolish are like the palm, not noticing the eyelash of the suffering of formation,

智者如眼睛，緣極生厭怖。

the wise are like the eye, and from meeting it conceive aversion and fear.

以諸愚夫於無間獄受劇苦蘊生苦怖心，不如眾聖於有頂蘊。道諦亦應是行苦攝，有為性故。道諦非苦，違逆聖心是行苦相。非聖道起違逆聖心，由此能引眾苦盡故。若觀諸有為涅槃寂靜者，亦由先見彼法是苦、後觀彼滅以為寂靜，故有為言唯顯有漏。若諸法中亦許有樂，何緣但說苦為聖諦？有一類釋：由樂少故。如置綠豆烏豆聚中，以少從多名烏豆聚。誰有智者瀝水澆癰有少樂生，計癰為樂？有餘於此以頌釋言：

(The treatise continues:) The foolish give rise to a mind of fear of suffering through the aggregates of intense suffering in the Avici hell, but this is not like the many noble ones with regard to the aggregates of the Peak of Existence. The truth of the path should also be included in the suffering of formation, because it is conditioned. The path is not suffering, but being contrary to the noble mind is the aspect of the suffering of formation. It is not that the noble path arises contrary to the noble mind, since it can lead to the end of all suffering. Those who observe that conditioned dharmas are nirvana, tranquil, also first see that those dharmas are suffering and afterward observe their cessation as tranquility; and so the word conditioned shows only the tainted. If there may also be pleasure in dharmas, why is only suffering spoken of as the noble truth? Some explain: because pleasure is little. Just as when one puts green beans in a heap of black beans, one names it a heap of black beans according to the majority, so too. What wise person, pouring water on an abscess and feeling a little pleasure, would regard the abscess as pleasant? Others explain this in a verse:

能為苦因故，能集眾苦故，

Because it can be a cause of suffering, because it can accumulate many sufferings,

有苦希彼故，說樂亦名苦。

because there is suffering that longs for it, pleasure is also called suffering.

理實應言，聖者觀察諸有及樂體皆是苦，以就行苦同一味故，由此立苦為諦非樂。如何亦觀樂受為苦？由性非常違聖心故。如以苦相觀色等時，非彼苦相一如苦受。有謂樂受是苦因故。諸聖亦觀彼為苦者，此釋非理，能為苦因是集行相，豈關於苦？又諸聖者生色無色，緣彼如何有苦想轉？非彼諸蘊為苦受因。又經復說行苦何用？若由非常觀樂為苦，非常苦觀行相何別？生滅法故觀為非常，違聖心故觀之為苦。但見非常知違聖心，故非常行相能引苦行相。有餘部師作如是執：定無實樂，受唯是苦。云何知然？由教、理故。云何由教？如世尊言：諸所有受無非是苦。又契經言：汝應以苦觀於樂受。又契經言：於苦謂樂名為顛倒。云何由理？以諸樂因皆不定故。謂諸所有衣服飲食冷煖等事，諸有情類許為樂因，此若非時過量受用便能生苦，復成苦因不應樂因。於增盛位或雖平等，但由非時，便成苦因能生於苦。故知衣等本是苦因，苦增盛時其相方顯。威儀易脫理亦應然。又治苦時方起樂覺，及苦易脫樂覺乃生。謂若未遭飢渴寒熱疲欲等苦所逼迫時，不於樂因生於樂覺。故於對治重苦因中，愚夫妄計此能生樂，實無決定能生樂因。苦易脫中愚夫謂樂，如荷重擔暫易肩等。故受唯苦，定無實樂。對法諸師言樂實有，此言應理。云何知然？且應反徵撥無樂者何名為苦？若謂逼迫既有適悅，有樂應成。若謂損害既有饒益，有樂應成。若謂非愛既有可愛，有樂應成。若謂可愛體非成實，以諸聖者於離染時，可愛復成非可愛故。不爾。可愛聖離染時，由異門觀為非愛故。謂若有受自相可愛，此受未常成非可愛。然諸聖者於離染時，以餘行相厭患此受，謂觀此受是放逸處，要由廣大功力所成變壞無常故非可愛，非彼自相是非愛法。若彼自體是非可愛，不應於中有起愛者。

(The treatise continues:) In truth it should be said that the noble, observing all existences and the substance of pleasure, take them all to be suffering, because with regard to the suffering of formation they are of one flavor; for this reason suffering is established as the truth, not pleasure. How do they also observe pleasant feeling as suffering? Because by nature it is impermanent and contrary to the noble mind. When one observes form and the like with the aspect of suffering, that aspect of suffering is not wholly the same as painful feeling. Some say that pleasant feeling is a cause of suffering, and that the noble also observe it as suffering for this reason, but this explanation is not reasonable: being able to be a cause of suffering is the aspect of origin, so how does it relate to suffering? Moreover, when noble ones are born in the form and formless realms, how can an idea of suffering arise with those realms as object? Those aggregates are not causes of painful feeling. And what use would it be for the sutra to speak again of the suffering of formation? If one observes pleasure as suffering through impermanence, how does the aspect of impermanence differ from the aspect of suffering? One observes it as impermanent because it is a dharma of arising and ceasing, and observes it as suffering because it is contrary to the noble mind. Only when one sees impermanence does one know that it is contrary to the noble mind, and so the aspect of impermanence can lead to the aspect of suffering. Some other school teachers hold the following view: there is certainly no real pleasure, and feeling is only suffering. How is this known? By scripture and by reason. How by scripture? As the World-Honored One said: all feelings without exception are suffering. A sutra also says: you should observe pleasant feeling as suffering. A sutra also says: regarding suffering as pleasure is called inversion. How by reason? Because the causes of pleasure are all indeterminate. That is, clothing, food and drink, cold and warmth and so on, which sentient beings admit to be causes of pleasure, can give rise to suffering if used at the wrong time or in excess, and so become causes of suffering and should not be causes of pleasure. In a state of excess, or even in equality, it is only because of the wrong time that they become causes of suffering and give rise to suffering. Therefore it is known that clothing and so on are basically causes of suffering, and their aspect becomes evident only when suffering increases. The easy release of postures should be understood in the same way. Moreover, the sense of pleasure arises only when suffering is being treated, and when suffering is easily released. That is, if one is not oppressed by suffering such as hunger, thirst, cold, heat or fatigue, one does not give rise to a sense of pleasure from the causes of pleasure. So in the causes that counter heavy suffering, fools wrongly suppose that these can give rise to pleasure, but in fact there is no determinate cause that can give rise to pleasure. In the easy release of suffering, fools take it to be pleasure, as when one shifts a heavy load from one shoulder to the other. Therefore feeling is only suffering and there is certainly no real pleasure. The Abhidharma masters say that pleasure is real, and this statement accords with reason. How is it known to be so? First, those who deny pleasure should be asked in return: what is called suffering? If you say that since oppression is present, enjoyment is also present, then pleasure should be established. If you say that since harm is present, benefit is also present, then pleasure should be established. If you say that since the disagreeable is present, the agreeable is also present, then pleasure should be established. If you say that the substance of the agreeable is not truly established, because for noble ones at the time of detachment the agreeable becomes disagreeable, it is not so. When the noble detach from the agreeable, it is because they observe it as disagreeable through a different approach. That is, if a feeling is by its own nature agreeable, that feeling never becomes disagreeable. However, when noble ones detach, they feel weariness toward this feeling through other aspects, namely observing that this feeling is a ground of heedlessness, that it is produced only by great effort, and that it is changing and impermanent, and so it is not agreeable; it is not that its own nature is a disagreeable dharma. If its own substance were disagreeable, craving should not arise in it.

若不起愛，於離染時聖者不應以餘行相觀察樂受深生厭患，故由自相有實樂受。然世尊言諸所有受無非苦者，佛自釋通。如契經言：佛告慶喜：我依諸行皆是無常，及諸有為皆是變壞，密作是說。諸所有受無非是苦，故知此經不依苦苦作如是說。若由自相說受皆苦，何緣慶喜作是問言：佛於餘經說有三受，謂樂及苦、不苦不樂。依何密意此經復言諸所有受無非是苦？慶喜但應作如是問：依何密意說有三受？世尊亦應但作是答：我依此密意，故說有三受。經中既無如是問答，故由自相實有三受。世尊既言我密意說諸所有受無非是苦，即已顯示此所說經依別意說非真了義。又契經言，汝應以苦觀樂受者，應知此經意顯樂受有二種性：一有樂性，謂此樂受依自相門是可愛故；二有苦性，謂依異門亦是無常變壞法故。然觀樂時能為繫縛，諸有貪者噉此味故。若觀苦時能令解脫，如是觀者得離貪故。佛以觀苦能令解脫，故勸有情觀樂為苦。如何知此自相是樂？如有頌言：

(The treatise continues:) If craving did not arise, then at the time of detachment the noble should not observe pleasant feeling through other aspects and give rise to deep weariness; therefore, by its own nature there is real pleasant feeling. Yet the World-Honored One said that all feelings without exception are suffering, and the Buddha himself explained this. As a sutra says: The Buddha told Ananda: Relying on the fact that all formations are impermanent and all conditioned things are changing and decaying, I spoke with a hidden meaning, saying that all feelings without exception are suffering. Therefore it is known that this sutra does not speak in this way according to the suffering of pain. If all feelings were suffering by their own nature, why did Ananda ask: In other sutras the Buddha says there are three feelings, pleasant, painful and neither-painful-nor-pleasant? With what hidden meaning does this sutra again say that all feelings without exception are suffering? Ananda should simply have asked: With what hidden meaning do you say there are three feelings? And the World-Honored One should simply have answered: I have said there are three feelings with this hidden meaning. Since there is no such question and answer in the sutra, there are really three feelings by their own nature. Since the World-Honored One said that he spoke with a hidden meaning in saying that all feelings without exception are suffering, he has already shown that the sutra is spoken according to another intention and is not of definitive meaning. As for the sutra that says you should observe pleasant feeling as suffering, it should be known that the meaning of this sutra is to show that pleasant feeling has two natures: first, it has the nature of pleasure, since it is agreeable in the aspect of its own nature; second, it has the nature of suffering, since, by another approach, it is also a dharma of impermanence and decay. However, when one observes it as pleasure, it can be a bond, since those with craving relish its taste. When one observes it as suffering, it can bring liberation, since one who observes it thus attains detachment from craving. Since the Buddha says that observing suffering can bring liberation, he urges sentient beings to observe pleasure as suffering. How do we know that its own nature is pleasure? As a verse says:

諸佛正遍覺，知諸行非常，

The Buddhas, perfectly and completely awakened, know that all formations are impermanent,

及有為變壞，故說受皆苦。

and that the conditioned is changing and decaying, and so they say that all feelings are suffering.

又契經言於苦謂樂名顛倒者，此別意說，以諸世間於諸樂受妙欲諸有一分樂中一向計樂故成顛倒。謂諸樂受若依異門亦有苦性，然諸世間唯觀為樂故成顛倒。諸妙欲境樂少苦多，唯觀為樂故成顛倒。諸有亦然，故不由此能證樂受無實理成。若受自相實皆苦者，佛說三受有何勝利？若謂世尊隨俗說者，不應正理。以世尊言我密說受無非苦故。又於觀五受說如實言故。謂契經說：所有樂根、所有喜根，應知此二皆是樂受，乃至廣說。復作是說：若以正慧如實觀見如是五根三結永斷，乃至廣說。又佛如何於一苦受，隨順世俗分別說三？若謂世間於下上中苦，如其次第起樂等三覺，佛隨順彼說樂等三。理亦不然，樂亦三故，應於下等三苦唯起上等樂覺。又受殊勝香味觸等所生樂時，有何下苦而世於中起樂受覺？若許爾時有下苦者，如是下苦已滅未生，世應爾時有極樂覺，此位眾苦都無有故。受欲樂時徵問亦爾。又下品受現在前時，許受分明猛利可取，許中品受現在前時，與此相違，如何應理？又下三定說有樂故，應有下苦；以上諸地說有捨故，應有中苦。定勝苦增，豈應正理？故不應依下等三苦如次建立樂等三受。又契經說：佛告大名：若色一向是苦非樂，非樂所隨，乃至廣說。故知定有少分實樂。如是且辯彼所引教，顯無實樂為證不成，所立理言亦不成證。且以諸樂因皆不定故者，此非正理，迷因義故。謂觀所依分位差別，諸外境界方為樂因或為苦因，非唯外境。若此外境至此所依如是分位能為樂因，未嘗至此不為樂因，是故樂因非不決定。如世間火，觀所煮炙分位差別，為美熟因或為違因，非唯彼火。若此火至此所煮炙如是分位為美熟因，未嘗至此非美熟因，故美熟因非不決定。樂因亦爾，決定理成。又三靜慮中樂因豈不定？彼因無時能生苦故。又彼所說要治苦時起樂覺者，準前已破。

(The treatise continues:) Moreover, the sutra says that regarding suffering as pleasure is inversion, and this is said with another intention: the worldly all hold pleasant feelings, excellent desirable objects and some existences to be entirely pleasant within a portion of pleasure, and so fall into inversion. That is, although pleasant feelings also have the nature of suffering through a different approach, the worldly observe them only as pleasure and so fall into inversion. In excellent desirable objects pleasure is little and suffering is much, and the worldly observe them only as pleasure and so fall into inversion. Existences are likewise, so it cannot be established from this that pleasant feeling has no real basis. If the own nature of feeling were truly all suffering, what advantage would there be in the Buddha speaking of three feelings? If you say that the World-Honored One spoke according to worldly convention, that is not correct reasoning, because the World-Honored One said that he spoke with a hidden meaning in saying that feelings are all without exception suffering. Moreover, in observing five feelings it is said that one speaks in accord with reality. A sutra says: the faculty of pleasure and the faculty of joy, it should be known that both are pleasant feelings, and so on at length. It also says: if one observes these five faculties as they really are with right wisdom, the three fetters are permanently cut off, and so on at length. Furthermore, how could the Buddha, regarding a single painful feeling, speak of three according to worldly convention? If you say that the worldly give rise to the three perceptions of pleasure and so on regarding lower, higher and middle suffering respectively, and that the Buddha speaks of the three of pleasure and so on in accord with them, this is also unreasonable, because pleasure also being three, one would give rise only to the perception of higher pleasure in the lower three sufferings and so on. Also, when one experiences the pleasure produced by excellent smells, tastes, touches and the like, what lower suffering is there that the worldly give rise to a perception of pleasant feeling in the middle? If you admit that there is then a lower suffering, this lower suffering has already ceased and not yet arisen, and the worldly should then have a perception of extreme pleasure, since at this moment all suffering is absent. The same question applies at the time of experiencing pleasure of desire. Moreover, when a lower-grade feeling is present, you admit that feeling is clear, sharp and graspable, and when a middle-grade feeling is present you admit that it is the opposite of this; how is this reasonable? Also, since pleasure is said to exist in the lower three concentrations, there should be a lower suffering there; since equanimity is said to exist in the higher grounds, there should be a middle suffering there. That suffering would be greater in the more excellent concentrations; how could this be correct reasoning? Therefore one should not establish the three feelings of pleasure and so on according to the lower, middle and upper three sufferings respectively. Moreover, a sutra says: The Buddha told Mahanama: If form were always only suffering and not pleasure, and not followed by pleasure, and so on at length. Therefore it is known that there is certainly a small portion of real pleasure. In this way, the scripture they cited has been addressed, showing that the proof that there is no real pleasure is not established, and the reasoning they proposed is not a proof either. First, saying that the causes of pleasure are all indeterminate is not correct reasoning, since it misunderstands the meaning of cause. One must observe the differences in the states of the basis: external objects are causes of pleasure or causes of suffering only according to this, not by external objects alone. If this external object, when it reaches this state of the basis, can be a cause of pleasure, then it has never reached this state without being a cause of pleasure; and so the causes of pleasure are not indeterminate. Like worldly fire: one observes the differences in the state of what is being cooked or roasted, and it is a cause of tasty cooking or a cause of its opposite not by that fire alone. If this fire, when it reaches this state of what is cooked or roasted, is a cause of tasty cooking, it never reaches this state without being a cause of tasty cooking, and so the cause of tasty cooking is not indeterminate. The causes of pleasure are likewise, and the reasoning is established as definite. Furthermore, are the causes of pleasure in the three concentrations indeterminate? Those causes never give rise to suffering. And their claim that the sense of pleasure arises only when suffering is treated has been refuted by what was said earlier.

謂受殊勝香味觸等所生樂時，對治何苦而世於中起於樂覺？設許爾時治麁苦者，此能治苦已滅未生，爾時轉應生極樂覺。又靜慮樂治何故生？如是等破準前應說。又彼所說苦易脫中樂覺乃生如易肩者，此身分位實能生樂，乃至身如是分位未滅前必有樂生，滅則不爾。若異此者，此位後時樂應轉增，苦漸微故。如是易脫身四威儀生樂解勞應知亦爾。若先無苦，於最後時何為欻然生於苦覺？由身變易分位別故，如酒等後時有甘醋味起，是故樂受實有理成。由此定知，諸有漏行三苦合故如應名苦。即苦行體亦名集諦，此說必定違越契經，契經唯說愛為集故。經就勝故說愛為集，理實所餘亦是集諦。如是理趣由何證知？餘契經中亦說餘故。如薄伽梵伽他中言：

(The treatise continues:) When one experiences pleasure produced by excellent smells, tastes, touches and the like, what suffering is being treated that the worldly give rise to a sense of pleasure in it? Even if you admit that at that time it treats coarse suffering, the suffering that can be treated has already ceased and not yet arisen, and at that time one should then give rise to extreme pleasure. And why does the pleasure of the dhyanas arise as treatment? These and the other refutations should be stated as before. Moreover, their claim that the sense of pleasure arises only in easy release from suffering, as in shifting a load from one shoulder to the other, is as follows: this bodily state can truly produce pleasure, and until the body is in such a state and has not yet ceased, there must be pleasure arising; when it ceases, it is not so. If it were otherwise, the pleasure of this state should increase later, since suffering gradually diminishes. The pleasure and relief of fatigue arising from the easy release of the four postures of the body should also be understood in this way. If there had been no suffering before, why would a feeling of suffering suddenly arise at the very end? It is because the state of the body has changed, as sweet and sour tastes arise later from wine and the like; therefore it is established by reason that pleasant feeling is real. From this it is certain that all tainted formations are called suffering as appropriate because they combine with the three sufferings. Some say that the very substance of the suffering formations is also the truth of origin, but this certainly contradicts the sutras, since the sutras say only that craving is origin. The sutra says that craving is origin according to what is most excellent, but in truth the others are also the truth of origin. By what is this reasoning known? Because other sutras also speak of others. As in a gatha spoken by the Bhagavan:

業愛及無明，為因招後行，

Karma, craving and ignorance, as causes bring about later formations,

令諸有相續，名補特伽羅。

making existences continue; this is called the person (pudgala).

又契經說五種種子，此即別名說有取識。又彼經說置地界中，此即別名說四識住。故經所說是密意言，阿毘達磨依法相說。然經中說愛為集者，偏說起因。伽他中說業愛無明皆為因者，具說生起及彼因因。云何知爾？業為生因、愛為起因，經所說故。又彼經中次第顯示後行業有因有緣有緒故。為別建立種子及田，說有取識及四識住，故非唯愛為集諦體。何法名生？何法名起？界趣生等品類差別自體出現，說名為生。若無差別後有相續，說名為起。業與有愛如其次第為彼二因，譬如種子與穀麥等別種類芽為能生因、水與一切無差別芽為能起因，業及有愛為生起因應知亦爾。愛為起因何理為證？離愛後有必不起故。謂有愛離愛二俱命終，唯見有愛者後有更起。由此理證愛為起因，起有起無定隨愛故。又由愛故相續趣後，現見若於是處有愛，則心相續數趣於彼。由此比知，以有愛故能令相續馳趣後有。又取後身，更無有法封執堅著如貪愛者，如蓽豆屑於澡浴時和水塗身，至乾燥位著身難離，餘無以加。如是無有餘為因法，執取後身如我愛者，由此理證愛為起因。如是世尊說諦有四。餘經復說：諦有二種，一世俗諦、二勝義諦。如是二諦，其相云何？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) Moreover, a sutra speaks of five kinds of seeds, which by another name speak of consciousness with grasping. That sutra also speaks of placing seeds in the earth element, which by another name speaks of the four stations of consciousness. Therefore what is said in the sutras is spoken with hidden meaning, while the Abhidharma speaks according to the characteristics of dharmas. However, saying in the sutras that craving is origin speaks only of the cause of arising. Saying in the gatha that karma, craving and ignorance are all causes fully speaks of arising and the causes of those causes. How is this known? Because the sutra says that karma is the cause of birth and craving is the cause of arising. Moreover, that sutra successively shows that later formations and karma have causes, conditions and threads. In order to separately establish seed and field, it speaks of consciousness with grasping and the four stations of consciousness, and so it is not only craving that is the substance of the truth of origin. What dharma is called birth? What dharma is called arising? The appearance of the distinct natures of realm, destiny, birth and so on is called birth. The continuation of future existence without such distinction is called arising. Karma and craving for existence are, in order, the causes of those two, just as seed is the producing cause of sprouts of different kinds such as grain and wheat, while water is the arising cause of sprouts of all kinds without distinction; karma and craving for existence as the causes of birth and arising should be understood likewise. What reasoning proves that craving is the cause of arising? Because without craving future existence certainly does not arise. That is, of those with craving and those without craving, both dying, only for those with craving does future existence arise again. By this reasoning it is proved that craving is the cause of arising, since the arising or non-arising of existence definitely follows craving. Moreover, because of craving the continuum goes toward the future: one sees that wherever there is craving, the mind's continuum repeatedly goes toward it. From this one infers that, because of craving for existence, the continuum is made to hasten toward future existence. Furthermore, in taking a future body there is no dharma that seals and clings as firmly as craving, like green-bean powder, which when mixed with water and smeared on the body at bathing, once dry clings to the body and is hard to remove, with nothing else that compares. Thus there is no other causal dharma that grasps a future body as the love of self does; by this reasoning it is proved that craving is the cause of arising. Thus the World-Honored One said there are four truths. Other sutras also say that there are two kinds of truths: first the conventional truth, second the ultimate truth. What are the characteristics of these two truths? The verse says:

彼覺破便無，慧析餘亦爾，

When the awareness of it is destroyed it ceases, and when wisdom analyzes the others it is likewise,

如瓶水世俗，異此名勝義。

like a pot or water, which is conventional; what differs from this is called ultimate.

論曰：若彼物覺彼破便無，彼物應知名世俗諦。如瓶被破為碎凡時瓶覺則無，衣等亦爾。又若有物以慧析餘彼覺便無亦是世俗，如水被慧析色等時水覺則無，火等亦爾。即於彼物未破析時，以世想名施設為彼，施設有故名為世俗。依世俗理說有瓶等是實非虛，名世俗諦。若物異此，名勝義諦。謂彼物覺彼破不無，及慧析餘彼覺仍有，應知彼物名勝義諦。如色等物碎至極微，或以勝慧析除味等，彼覺恆有，受等亦然，此真實有故名勝義。依勝義理說有色等是實非虛，名勝義諦。先軌範師作如是說：如出世智及此後得世間正智所取諸法名勝義諦，如此餘智所取諸法名世俗諦。已辯諸諦，應說云何方便勤修趣見諦道。頌曰：

The treatise says: If the awareness of a thing ceases when that thing is destroyed, that thing should be known as a conventional truth. For example, when a pot is broken into potsherds, the awareness of the pot ceases; clothing and the like are likewise. Moreover, if the awareness of a thing ceases when wisdom analyzes its other components, it is also conventional; for example, when water is analyzed by wisdom into form and the like, the awareness of water ceases, and fire and the like are likewise. That is, before the thing is destroyed or analyzed, it is designated by worldly conception and name, and because of this designation it is called conventional. According to the conventional principle, it is said that pots and the like exist, are real and not false, and this is called the conventional truth. If a thing differs from this, it is called the ultimate truth. That is, when the awareness of a thing does not cease even when that thing is destroyed, and when the awareness remains even when wisdom analyzes its other components, that thing should be known as the ultimate truth. For example, when material things such as form are broken down to atoms, or the taste and so on are analyzed away by superior wisdom, the awareness remains constant, and feeling and the like are also so; because these truly exist, they are called ultimate. According to the ultimate principle, it is said that form and so on exist, are real and not false, and this is called the ultimate truth. The earlier masters said: the dharmas taken by supramundane wisdom and by the later-attained worldly right wisdom are called the ultimate truth, and the dharmas taken by other wisdoms are called the conventional truth. The truths having been explained, how should one diligently cultivate and approach the path of seeing the truths? The verse says:

將趣見諦道，應住戒勤修，

One about to approach the path of seeing the truths should abide in morality and diligently cultivate,

聞思修所成，謂名俱義境。

what is accomplished by hearing, reflection and cultivation, taking name, both and meaning as objects.

論曰：諸有發心將趣見諦，應先安住清淨屍羅，然後勤修聞所成等。謂先攝受順見諦聞，聞已勤求所聞法義，聞法義已無倒思惟，思已方能依定修習。行者如是住戒勤修，依聞所成慧起思所成慧，依思所成慧起修所成慧。此三慧相差別云何？毘婆沙師謂三慧相緣名俱義如次有別：聞所成慧唯緣名境，未能捨文而觀義故。思所成慧緣名義境，有時由文引義、有時由義引文，未全捨文而觀義故。修所成慧唯緣義境，已能捨文唯觀義故。譬若有人浮深駛水，曾未學者不捨所依，曾學未成或捨或執，曾善學者不待所依自力浮渡。三慧亦爾。有言：若爾，思慧不成。謂此既通緣名緣義，如次應是聞修所成。今詳三相無過別者，謂修行者依聞至教所生勝慧名聞所成，依思正理所生勝慧名思所成，依修等持所生勝慧名修所成。說所成言顯三勝慧是聞思等三因所成，猶如世間於命牛等如次說是食草所成。諸有欲於修精勤學者，如何淨身器令修速成？頌曰：

The treatise says: Those who have set their minds to approach the seeing of the truths should first abide in pure morality (shila), and then diligently cultivate what is accomplished by hearing and so on. That is, one first takes up hearing that accords with seeing the truths, and having heard, diligently seeks the meaning of the Dharma that has been heard; having heard the meaning of the Dharma, one reflects without inversion, and having reflected, one can then cultivate relying on concentration. A practitioner who abides in morality and cultivates diligently in this way gives rise to wisdom accomplished by reflection relying on wisdom accomplished by hearing, and gives rise to wisdom accomplished by cultivation relying on wisdom accomplished by reflection. How do these three wisdoms differ in their characteristics? The Vaibhashikas say that the three wisdoms differ in their objects in order: names, both name and meaning, and meaning. The wisdom accomplished by hearing takes only name as its object, since it cannot yet leave the text and observe the meaning. The wisdom accomplished by reflection takes name and meaning as its objects; sometimes the text leads to the meaning and sometimes the meaning leads to the text, since it has not entirely left the text in observing the meaning. The wisdom accomplished by cultivation takes only meaning as its object, since it can already leave the text and observe only the meaning. It is like a person floating in deep, swift water: one who has never learned does not let go of what supports him; one who has learned but not mastered sometimes lets go and sometimes holds on; one who has learned well crosses by his own strength without needing support. The three wisdoms are likewise. Some say: if so, the wisdom of reflection is not established, because it extends to both name and meaning, and so should in order be wisdom of hearing and of cultivation. Now, when examined, the three characteristics have no fault of distinction: the superior wisdom arising in a practitioner from hearing the noble teaching is called wisdom accomplished by hearing, the superior wisdom arising from reflecting on correct reasoning is called wisdom accomplished by reflection, and the superior wisdom arising from cultivating meditative concentration is called wisdom accomplished by cultivation. The word accomplished indicates that the three superior wisdoms are accomplished by the three causes of hearing, reflection and cultivation, just as in the world life, cattle and so on are said in order to be accomplished by eating grass. For those who wish to study diligently in cultivation, how can they purify the body and vessel so that cultivation is accomplished quickly? The verse says:

具身心遠離，無不足大欲，

Possessing seclusion of body and mind, with no discontent and no great desire,

謂已得未得，多求名所無。

that is, for what is already obtained and not yet obtained, seeking much is called what is absent.

治相違界三，無漏無貪性，

The antidote is opposed to the three realms, being untainted, and by nature without craving,

四聖種亦爾，前三唯喜足。

the four noble lineages are likewise, the first three being only contentment.

三生具後業，為治四愛生，

Three births, endowments and later karma, to counter the four kinds of craving arising,

我所我事欲，暫息永除故。

self, what belongs to self, matters and desire, because they temporarily or permanently remove them.

論曰：身器清淨略由三因。何等謂三因？一身心遠離、二喜足少欲、三住四聖種。身遠離者，離相雜住。心遠離者，離不善尋。此二易可成，由喜足少欲。言喜足者無不喜足，少欲者無大欲。所無二種差別云何？對法諸師鹹作是說：於已得妙衣服等更多求名不喜足，於未得妙衣等多希求名大欲。豈不更求亦緣未得，此二差別便應不成？是故此中應作是說：於所已得不妙不多悵望不歡名不喜足，於所未得衣服等事求妙求多名為大欲。喜足少欲能治此故，與此相違應知差別。喜足少欲通三界無漏，所治二種唯欲界所繫。喜足少欲體是無貪，所治二種欲貪為性。能生眾聖故名聖種。四聖種體亦是無貪，四中前三體唯喜足，謂於衣服飲食臥具隨所得中皆生喜足，第四聖種謂樂斷修，如何亦用無貪為體？以能棄捨有欲貪故。為顯何義立四聖種？以諸弟子捨俗生具及俗事業，為求解脫歸佛出家。法主世尊愍彼安立助道二事：一者生具、二者事業。前三即是助道生具，最後即是助道事業。汝等若能依前生具作後事業，解脫非久。何故安立如是二事？為欲對治四種愛生，故契經言：苾芻諦聽！愛因衣服應生時生、應住時住、應執時執。如是愛因飲食臥具及有無有，皆如是說。為治此四說四聖種。即依此義更異門說，謂佛為欲暫息永除我所我事欲，故說四聖種。我所事者謂衣服等，我事者謂自身，緣彼貪名為欲。為暫止息前三貪故說前三聖種，為永滅除四種貪故說第四聖種。如是已說修所依器。由何門故能正入修？頌曰：

The treatise says: The purification of the body as a vessel comes briefly from three causes. What are the three? First, bodily and mental seclusion; second, contentment and few desires; and third, dwelling in the four noble lineages. Bodily seclusion means living apart from mixed company. Mental seclusion means being free of unwholesome thoughts. These two are easily accomplished through contentment and few desires. Contentment means being without discontent; few desires means being without great desire. How do the two that are absent differ? The Abhidharma masters all say: seeking more of fine clothing and the like that one has already obtained is called discontent; seeking much of fine clothing and the like that one has not yet obtained is called great desire. But does seeking more not also take what is not yet obtained as its object, so that the difference between the two would not hold? Therefore it should be said here: being dissatisfied and displeased with what one has already obtained as not fine or not enough is called discontent; seeking fineness and abundance in clothing and the like not yet obtained is called great desire. Contentment and few desires can counteract these; what is contrary to this should be understood as the distinction. Contentment and few desires are undefiled in the three realms, while the two that they counteract belong only to the desire realm. The substance of contentment and few desires is non-greed, and the two counteracted are by nature desire-greed. Because they give rise to the many noble ones, they are called noble lineages. The substance of the four noble lineages is also non-greed; of the four, the first three are substantively only contentment, namely contentment in whatever clothing, food and drink, and bedding one obtains; the fourth noble lineage is delight in abandoning and cultivating. How can it too have non-greed as its substance? Because it can cast away what has desire-greed. To show what meaning are the four noble lineages established? Because the disciples, abandoning the necessities and affairs of lay life, take refuge in the Buddha and leave home seeking liberation, the Dharma Lord, the World-Honored One, out of compassion for them, established two supports of the path: first, the necessities of life; and second, the work. The first three are the necessities that support the path, and the last is the work that supports the path. If you can, relying on the former necessities, do the latter work, liberation is not far off. Why were these two established? In order to counteract the four kinds of arising of craving, the sutra says: Bhikshus, listen carefully! Craving for clothing arises when it should arise, abides when it should abide, and clings when it should cling. Craving for food and drink, bedding, and existence and non-existence is spoken of likewise. To counteract these four, the four noble lineages are taught. According to this very meaning, it is said in another way: the Buddha taught the four noble lineages in order to temporarily quiet and permanently eliminate desire for what is mine and for my affairs. What is mine means clothing and the like; my affairs means one's own body; greed for them is called desire. To temporarily stop the first three kinds of greed, the first three noble lineages are taught; to permanently extinguish all four kinds of greed, the fourth noble lineage is taught. The vessel on which cultivation depends has thus been explained. Through what doors can one properly enter cultivation? The verse says:

入修要二門，不淨觀息念，

There are two main doors to enter cultivation: contemplation of impurity and mindfulness of breathing;

貪尋增上者，如次第應修。

one in whom greed or discursive thought predominates should cultivate each in order.

論曰：正入修門要者有二，一不淨觀、二持息念。誰於何門能正入修？如次應知。貪尋增者，謂貪猛盛數現在前，如是有情名貪行者，彼觀不淨能正入修。尋多亂心名尋行者，彼依息念能正入修。有餘師言：此持息念非多緣故能止亂尋，不淨多緣顯形差別引多尋故治彼無能。有餘復言：此持息念內門轉故能止亂尋，不淨多於外門轉故，猶如眼識治彼無能。此中先應辯不淨觀。如是觀相云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: There are two main doors by which to properly enter cultivation: first, contemplation of impurity; second, mindfulness of breathing. Who can properly enter cultivation through which door? It should be understood in order. Those in whom greed increases, meaning greed is fierce and frequently arises, such beings are called greed-types, and by contemplating impurity they can properly enter cultivation. Those whose minds are confused by much discursive thought are called thought-types, and by relying on mindfulness of breathing they can properly enter cultivation. Other masters say: mindfulness of breathing, not having many objects, can stop disturbing thought, whereas contemplation of impurity, having many objects that show differences of shape and color, gives rise to much thought and so cannot counteract it. Others further say: mindfulness of breathing turns on an inner door and so can stop disturbing thought, whereas impurity mostly turns on outer doors, like eye-consciousness, and so cannot counteract it. Here one should first discuss contemplation of impurity. What are the characteristics of this contemplation? The verse says:

為通治四貪，且辯觀骨鎖，

To counteract the four kinds of greed in general, first the skeleton is contemplated,

廣至海復略，名初習業位，

broadened up to the ocean and then abbreviated again: this is called the stage of a beginner's practice;

除足至頭半，名為已熟修，

removing from the feet up to half the head is called well-practiced cultivation;

繫心在眉間，名超作意位。

fixing the mind between the eyebrows is called the stage of surpassing attention.

論曰：修不淨觀正為治貪，然貪差別略有四種：一顯色貪、二形色貪、三妙觸貪、四供奉貪。緣青瘀等修不淨觀治第一貪，緣被食等修不淨觀治第二貪，緣蟲蛆等修不淨觀治第三貪，緣屍不動修不淨觀治第四貪。若緣骨鎖修不淨觀，通能對治如是四貪，以骨鎖中無四貪境，故應且辯修骨鎖觀。此唯勝解作意攝故、少分緣故，不斷煩惱，唯能制伏令不現行。然瑜伽師修骨鎖觀總有三位：一初習業、二已熟修、三超作意。謂觀行者欲修如是不淨觀時，應先繫心於自身分，或於足指或額或餘，隨所樂處心得住已，依勝解力於自身分假想思惟，皮肉爛墮漸令骨淨，乃至具觀全身骨鎖。見一具已復觀第二，如是漸次廣至一房一寺一園一村一國，乃至遍地以海為邊，於其中間骨鎖充滿，為令勝解得增長故。於所廣事漸略而觀，乃至唯觀一具骨鎖，齊此漸略不淨觀成，名瑜伽師初習業位。為令略觀勝解力增，於一具中先除足骨思惟餘骨繫心而住，漸次乃至除頭半骨思惟半骨繫心而住，齊此轉略不淨觀成，名瑜伽師已熟修位。為令略觀勝解自在，除半頭骨繫心眉間，專注一緣湛然而住，齊此極略不淨觀成，名瑜伽師超作意位。有不淨觀由所緣小非自在小，應作四句，此由作意已熟未熟未熟已熟，及由所緣自身至海有差別故。此不淨觀何性？幾地？緣何境？何處生？何行相？緣何世？為有漏、為無漏？為離染得、為加行得？頌曰：

The treatise says: Cultivation of contemplation of impurity is chiefly to counteract greed; yet greed is briefly of four kinds: first, greed for color; second, greed for shape; third, greed for pleasant touch; and fourth, greed for service. Cultivating contemplation of impurity on a bluish, bruised corpse and the like counteracts the first greed; on a corpse being eaten and the like, the second; on worms and maggots and the like, the third; and on an unmoving corpse, the fourth. If one cultivates contemplation of impurity on the skeleton, one can counteract all four kinds of greed, since in a skeleton there are no objects of the four kinds of greed; so cultivation of contemplation of the skeleton should be discussed first. This is included only in attention of resolve, and since it takes only a part as object, it does not eliminate the afflictions but can only subdue them so that they do not manifest. The yogi's cultivation of contemplation of the skeleton has three stages in all: first, the beginner's practice; second, well-practiced cultivation; and third, surpassing attention. That is, when a practitioner wishes to cultivate this contemplation of impurity, he should first fix his mind on a part of his own body, either the big toe, the forehead, or elsewhere; when the mind abides at the place that he likes, relying on the power of resolve he imagines and reflects on that part of his own body, the skin and flesh rotting and falling away, gradually leaving the bones clean, until he contemplates the skeleton of the entire body. Having seen one skeleton he contemplates a second, and in this way gradually extends it to a room, a monastery, a garden, a village, a country, until the entire earth bounded by the sea, with skeletons filling the space between, in order to make resolve increase. He then gradually abbreviates the extended object and contemplates it, until he contemplates only one skeleton; up to here, when the abbreviated contemplation of impurity is accomplished, it is called the stage of the yogi's beginner's practice. In order to increase the power of resolve in abbreviated contemplation, in a single skeleton he first removes the bones of the feet and reflects on the other bones, fixing the mind there, and gradually, up to removing half the bones of the head, reflects on the half bones and fixes the mind; up to here, when the further abbreviated contemplation is accomplished, it is called the stage of the yogi's well-practiced cultivation. In order to make the abbreviated contemplation of resolve masterful, he removes half the skull bones and fixes the mind between the eyebrows, abiding clear and still with exclusive focus on one object; up to here, when the extremely abbreviated contemplation of impurity is accomplished, it is called the stage of the yogi's surpassing attention. There is contemplation of impurity whose object is small but is not small in mastery; a four-way alternative should be made, since this differs according to whether attention is well practiced or not, and according to whether the object ranges from one's own body to the ocean. What is the nature of this contemplation of impurity? Which grounds? What object does it take? Where is it born? What aspect? Which time does it take as object? Is it defiled or undefiled? Is it obtained by becoming free of defilement or by effort? The verse says:

無貪性十地，緣欲色人生，

Its nature is non-greed, of ten grounds; it takes the desire realm and form, and is born among humans;

不淨自世緣，有漏通二得。

it takes impurity as aspect, its own time as object; it is defiled and is obtained in both ways.

論曰：如先所問今次第答。謂此觀以無貪為性通依十地，謂四靜慮及四近分中間欲界，唯緣欲界所見色境。所見者何？謂顯形色。緣義為境，由此已成。唯人趣生，三洲除北，尚非餘趣況餘界生。既立不淨名，唯不淨行相。隨在何世緣自世境，若不生法通緣三世。既唯勝解作意相應，此觀理應唯是有漏。通離染得及加行得，由有曾得未曾得故。說不淨觀相差別已，次應辯持息念。此差別相云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: As asked before, the answers now follow in order. This contemplation has non-greed as its nature and relies on ten grounds, namely the four meditations, the four access stages, the intermediate meditation, and the desire realm; it takes as object only the form seen in the desire realm. What is seen? It is visible form of color and shape. It takes meaning as its object, as already established. It is born only in the human destiny, in three continents excepting the north; it is not even found in other destinies, let alone in other realms. Since it is named impurity, its aspect is only impurity. In whatever time it is, it takes objects of its own time; as for unarisen dharmas it extends to taking all three times. Since it is associated only with attention of resolve, this contemplation should be defiled. It is obtained both through becoming free of defilement and through effort, because there is what was previously obtained and what was not previously obtained. Having explained the differences in the characteristics of the contemplation of impurity, next one should discuss mindfulness of breathing. What are the characteristics of this? The verse says:

息念慧五地，緣風依欲身，

Mindfulness of breathing is wisdom of five grounds, takes wind as object, and depends on the desire-realm body;

二得實外無，有六謂數等。

it is obtained in two ways; real, not external; it has six aspects, namely counting and the rest.

論曰：言息念者，即契經中所說阿那阿波那念。言阿那者，謂持息入，是引外風令入身義。阿波那者，謂持息出，是引內風令出身義。慧由念力觀此為境，故名阿那阿波那念。以慧為性而說念者，念力持故，於境分明所作事成，如念住故。通於五地，謂初二三靜慮近分中間欲界，此念唯與捨相應故。謂苦樂受能順引尋，此念治尋故不俱起。喜樂二受能違專注，此念於境專注故成。由此相違，故不俱起。有說：根本下三靜慮中亦有捨受。彼說依八地，上定現前息無有故。此定緣風，依欲身起。唯人天趣，除北俱盧。通離染得及加行得，唯與真實作意相應。正法有情方能修習，外道無有，無說者故、自不能覺微細法故。此相圓滿由具六因：一數、二隨、三止、四觀、五轉、六淨。數謂繫心緣入出息不作加行，放捨身心唯念憶持入出息數，從一至十不減不增，恐心於現極聚散故。然於此中容有三失：一數減失，於二謂一。二數增失，於一謂二。三雜亂失，於入謂出、於出謂入。若離如是三種過失，名為正數。若十中間心散亂者，復應從一次第數之，終而復始乃至得定。隨謂繫心緣入出息，不作加行隨息而行，念息入出時各遠至何所。謂念息入，為行遍身、為行一分？隨彼息入，行至喉心臍髖髀脛乃至足指，念恆隨逐。若念息出，離身為至一磔一尋，隨所至方念恆隨逐。有餘師說：息出極遠，乃至風輪或吠嵐婆。此不應理，此念真實作意俱故。止謂繫念唯在鼻端，或在眉間乃至足指，隨所樂處安止其心。觀息住身如珠中縷，為冷為煖、為損為益。觀謂觀察此息風已，兼觀息俱大種造色及依色住心及心所，具觀五蘊以為境界。轉謂移轉，緣息風覺安置後後勝善根中乃至世間第一法位。淨謂昇進入見道等。有餘師說：念住為初，金剛喻定為後名轉，盡智等方名淨，為攝六相故說頌言：

The treatise says: Mindfulness of breathing is the anapanasmriti spoken of in the sutras. Ana means holding the breath in, the meaning of drawing external wind into the body. Apana means holding the breath out, the meaning of expelling internal wind from the body. Wisdom, through the power of mindfulness, contemplates this as its object, so it is called anapanasmriti. Although it is said to be mindfulness while having wisdom as its nature, it is because the power of mindfulness sustains it, so that the object is clear and the task is accomplished, as with the foundations of mindfulness. It extends over five grounds, namely the first three meditations, the access stages, the intermediate stage, and the desire realm; this mindfulness is associated only with equanimity. For the feelings of suffering and pleasure can lead to thought, and this mindfulness counteracts thought, so they do not arise together. The two feelings of joy and pleasure can oppose exclusive focus, whereas this mindfulness succeeds through exclusive focus on its object; because they are contrary, they do not arise together. Some say: the feeling of equanimity also exists in the lower three of the root meditations. They say it relies on eight grounds, since in higher concentrations when they are present there is no breath. This concentration takes wind as object and arises depending on the desire-realm body, only in the human and divine destinies, excepting the north Kuru. It is obtained both through becoming free of defilement and through effort, and is associated only with real attention. Only sentient beings of the correct Dharma can practice it; it does not exist among non-Buddhists, because they do not teach it and cannot themselves perceive subtle dharmas. Its characteristics are complete by having six causes: first, counting; second, following; third, stopping; fourth, contemplating; fifth, transforming; and sixth, purifying. Counting means fixing the mind on the in-breath and out-breath without making effort, relaxing the body and mind, and only recollecting and holding the count of the in- and out-breaths, from one to ten without decreasing or increasing, for fear that the mind may scatter or gather too much in the present. In this there may be three faults: first, the fault of undercounting, taking two as one; second, the fault of overcounting, taking one as two; and third, the fault of confusion, taking an in-breath as an out-breath and an out-breath as an in-breath. If free of these three faults it is called correct counting. If the mind is distracted in the middle of the ten, one should count again from one in order, ending and starting again until concentration is attained. Following means fixing the mind on the in- and out-breath, following the breath without making effort, remembering how far the breath reaches when entering and leaving. That is, recollecting the breath entering, does it travel through the whole body or one part? Following the entering breath, it travels to the throat, heart, navel, hips, thighs, shins, and even the toes, with mindfulness constantly following. If recollecting the breath leaving, as it leaves the body, how far does it reach, a span or a fathom? In whatever direction it reaches, mindfulness constantly follows. Some other masters say: the out-breath goes extremely far, up to the wind circle or the vairambha (a fierce wind). This is unreasonable, since this mindfulness arises together with real attention. Stopping means fixing mindfulness only at the tip of the nose, or between the eyebrows, down to the toes, and settling the mind wherever one likes. One observes the breath dwelling in the body like a thread in a pearl, whether it is cool or warm, harmful or beneficial. Contemplating means that having observed this breath-wind, one further observes the great elements and derived form that accompany the breath, and the mind and mental factors that rest on the form, contemplating all five aggregates as the object. Transforming means shifting: taking the awareness of the breath-wind and placing it in successively superior wholesome roots, up to the stage of the highest worldly dharma. Purifying means advancing and entering the path of seeing and so on. Other masters say: the foundations of mindfulness are the first and the vajra-like concentration is the last, called transforming, and only the knowledge of exhaustion and the like is called purifying. To sum up the six characteristics, a verse says:

持息念應知，有六種異相，

Mindfulness of breathing should be known to have six different aspects,

謂數隨止觀、轉淨相差別。

namely counting, following, stopping, contemplating, and the differences of transforming and purifying.

息相差別云何應知？頌曰：

How should the differences of the breath be known? The verse says:

入出息隨身，依二差別轉，

The in- and out-breath follow the body, and turn depending on two differences;

情數非執受，等流非下緣。

they are included among sentient beings, not appropriated, of the outflow type, and not an object of lower grounds.

論曰：隨身生地，息彼地攝，以息是身一分攝故。此入出息轉依身心差別，以生無色界及羯剌藍等併入無心定及第四定等，此息於彼皆不轉故。謂要身中有諸孔隙，入出息地心正現前，息於爾時方得轉故。出第四定等及初生時息最先入，入第四定等及後死時息最後出。息有情數攝，有情身分故。非有執受，與根相離故。是等流性，同類因生故。非所長養，身增長時彼損減故。非異熟生，斷已後時更相續故、餘異熟色無如是故。唯自上地心之所緣，非下地威儀，通果心境故。

The treatise says: The breath follows the body in the ground where it is born, and is included in that ground, because the breath is included as a part of the body. The in- and out-breath turn depending on differences of body and mind: it does not turn for those born in the formless realm, in kalala and the like, and those who enter the concentration without mind and the fourth meditation and so on. It is only when the body has holes and gaps, and the mind of the ground of the in- and out-breath is actually present, that the breath can then turn. On emerging from the fourth meditation and so on, and at first birth, the breath enters first; on entering the fourth meditation and so on, and at the final death, the breath leaves last. The breath is included among sentient beings, being a part of a sentient being's body. It is not appropriated, since it is separate from the faculties. It is of the outflow type, arising from a cause of the same kind. It is not nourished, because it diminishes when the body grows. It is not born of maturation, because it continues again after being cut off, and other maturation-born forms are not so. It is only an object of the minds of its own and higher grounds, not of lower grounds, since the minds of deportment and supernormal transformation are its objects.

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang by imperial command

分別賢聖品第六之二

Chapter 6, Analysis of the Noble Ones, Part 2

如是已說入修二門，由此二門心便得定。心得定已復何所修？頌曰：

Thus the two doors for entering cultivation have been explained; through these two doors the mind attains concentration. Having attained concentration, what further is cultivated? The verse says:

依已修成止，為觀修念住，

Relying on the shamatha already accomplished, for the sake of insight, one cultivates the foundations of mindfulness,

以自相共相，觀身受心法。

contemplating body, feeling, mind, and dharmas by their specific and common characteristics.

自性聞等慧，餘相雜所緣，

Their own natures, and wisdom born of hearing and the rest; the other mixed objects;

說次第隨生，治倒故唯四。

it is said that they arise in sequence; to counteract the inversions there are only four.

論曰：依已修成滿勝奢摩他，為毘缽舍那修四念住。如何修習四念住耶？謂以自共相觀身、受、心、法。身受心法各別自性名為自相。一切有為皆非常性、一切有漏皆是苦性及一切法空非我性名為共相。身自性者，大種造色。受心自性，如自名顯。法自性者，除三餘法。傳說在定以極微剎那各別觀身，名身念住滿，餘三滿相如應當知。何等名為四念住體？此四念住體各有三，自性、相雜、所緣別故。自性念住以慧為體，此慧有三種，謂聞等所成，即此亦名三種念住。相雜念住以慧、所餘俱有為體。所緣念住以慧所緣諸法為體。寧知自性是慧非餘？經說：於身住循身觀名身念住。餘三亦然。諸循觀名唯目慧體，非慧無有循觀用故。何緣於慧立念住名？毘婆沙師說：此品念增故。是念力持慧得轉義，如斧破木由楔力持。理實應言慧令念住，是故於慧立念住名，隨慧所觀能明記故，由此無滅作如是言：若有能於身住循身觀，緣身念得住，乃至廣說。世尊亦說：若有於身住循身觀者，念便住不謬。然有經言：此四念住由何故集？由何故滅？食觸名色作意集故，如次令身受心法集。食觸名色作意滅故，如次令身受心法滅。應知彼說所緣念住，以念於彼得安住故。又念住別名隨所緣緣自他俱相續異故。一一念住各有三種，此四念住說次隨生。生復何緣？次第如是。隨境麁者應先觀故，或諸欲貪於身處轉，故四念住觀身在初。然貪於身由欣樂受，欣樂於受由心不調，心之不調由惑未斷，故觀受等如是次第。此四念住如次治彼淨、樂、常、我四種顛倒，故唯有四不增不減。四中三種唯不雜緣，第四所緣通雜不雜。若唯觀法名不雜緣，若於身等二三或四總而觀察名為雜緣。如是熟修雜緣身等法念住已，復何所修？頌曰：

The treatise says: Relying on supreme shamatha that has been cultivated to completion, one cultivates the four foundations of mindfulness for the sake of vipashyana. How are the four foundations of mindfulness cultivated? By contemplating the body, feelings, mind, and dharmas through their specific and common characteristics. The distinct own natures of body, feelings, mind, and dharmas are called specific characteristics. That all conditioned things are impermanent, that all defiled things are suffering, and that all dharmas are empty and without self are called common characteristics. The own nature of the body is the great elements and derived form. The own natures of feeling and mind are as shown by their names. The own nature of dharmas is the other dharmas apart from the three. It is said that in concentration one contemplates the body separately by ultimate particles and moments, and this is called the completion of mindfulness of the body; the completion of the other three should be understood likewise. What are called the substance of the four foundations of mindfulness? Each of the four foundations has three substances, because of the difference between own nature, association, and object. The foundation of mindfulness of own nature has wisdom as its substance; this wisdom is of three kinds, namely born of hearing and the rest, and these are also called the three kinds of foundations of mindfulness. The foundation of mindfulness of association has wisdom and the other co-existent conditioned dharmas as its substance. The foundation of mindfulness of the object has the dharmas taken by wisdom as its substance. How do we know that the own nature is wisdom and not something else? The sutra says: dwelling in the body, contemplating the body, is the foundation of mindfulness of the body; the other three are likewise. The term contemplating indicates only the substance of wisdom, since without wisdom there is no function of contemplating. For what reason is the name foundation of mindfulness given to wisdom? The Vibhasha masters say: because mindfulness is predominant in this category. The meaning is that wisdom can turn through the sustaining power of mindfulness, as an axe splits wood through the sustaining power of a wedge. In truth it should be said that wisdom makes mindfulness abide, and therefore the name foundation of mindfulness is given to wisdom, because, according to what wisdom contemplates, one can remember clearly; so Wumie said thus: if one can dwell in the body contemplating the body, mindfulness of the body abides, and so on at length. The World-Honored One also said: for one who dwells in the body contemplating the body, mindfulness abides without error. Yet a sutra also says: by what cause do these four foundations of mindfulness arise? By what cause do they cease? Because of the arising of food, contact, name and form, and attention, the body, feeling, mind, and dharmas arise respectively; because of the cessation of food, contact, name and form, and attention, the body, feeling, mind, and dharmas cease respectively. It should be understood that this speaks of the foundation of mindfulness of the object, since mindfulness abides in regard to it. Further, the separate names of the foundations of mindfulness follow the objects and conditions, because their own and others' continua differ. Each foundation of mindfulness has three kinds. These four foundations are said to arise in sequence. What is the reason for the sequence? It is thus: since what has coarse objects should be contemplated first, or since desire-greed turns on the body, the foundation of the body is first. Yet greed for the body arises from delight in feeling, delight in feeling arises from an untamed mind, and an untamed mind arises from afflictions not yet eliminated; therefore the contemplation of feeling and the rest are in this sequence. These four foundations of mindfulness respectively counteract the four inversions of purity, pleasure, permanence, and self; therefore there are only four, neither more nor fewer. Of the four, three have only unmixed objects, while the fourth has an object that is both mixed and unmixed. If one contemplates only dharmas, it is called an unmixed object; if one contemplates body and the rest together, two, three, or four at once, it is called a mixed object. Having thus well practiced the foundation of mindfulness of dharmas that has the body and the rest as mixed objects, what further is cultivated? The verse says:

彼居法念住，總觀四所緣，

Dwelling in that foundation of mindfulness of dharmas, one contemplates the four objects together,

修非常及苦，空非我行相。

and cultivates the aspects of impermanence and suffering, emptiness and non-self.

論曰：彼觀行者居緣總雜法念住中，總觀所緣身等四境修四行相，所謂非常、苦、空、非我。修此觀已生何善根？頌曰：

The treatise says: The practitioner, dwelling in the foundation of mindfulness of dharmas that takes general and mixed objects, contemplates together the four objects of body and the rest, and cultivates the four aspects, namely impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and non-self. Having cultivated this contemplation, what wholesome root arises? The verse says:

從此生煖法，具觀四聖諦，

From this arises the dharma of warmth, which contemplates the four noble truths completely,

修十六行相，次生頂亦然，

and cultivates the sixteen aspects; next the dharma of the summit arises, likewise;

如是二善根，皆初法後四。

these two wholesome roots are, at first, the foundation of dharmas, and later all four.

次忍唯法念，下中品同頂，

Next, acceptance is only the foundation of dharmas; the lower and middle grades are the same as the summit;

上唯觀欲苦，一行一剎那，

the highest grade contemplates only the suffering of the desire realm, one aspect, one moment;

世第一亦然，皆慧五除得

the highest worldly dharma is likewise; all have wisdom as their substance, with five aggregates excluding acquisition.

論曰：修習總緣共相法念住，漸次成熟乃至上上品。從此念住後，有順決擇分初善根生，名為煖法。此法如煖立煖法名，是能燒惑薪聖道火前相，如火前相故名為煖。此煖善根分位長故，能具觀察四聖諦境，及能具修十六行相。觀苦聖諦修四行相：一非常、二苦、三空、四非我。觀集聖諦修四行相：一因、二集、三生、四緣。觀滅聖諦修四行相：一滅、二靜、三妙、四離。觀道聖諦修四行相：一道、二如、三行、四出。此相差別如後當辯。此煖善根下中上品漸次增長至成滿時有善根生，名為頂法，此轉勝故更立異名。動善根中此法最勝，如人頂故，名為頂法。或由此是進退兩際，如山頂故，說名為頂。此亦如煖具觀四諦，及能具修十六行相。如是煖頂二種善根，初安足時唯法念住。以何義故名初安足？謂隨何善根以十六行相最初遊踐四聖諦跡，後增進時具四念住。諸先所得後不現前，於彼不生欽重心故。此頂善根下中上品漸次增長，至成滿時有善根生名為忍法，於四諦理能忍可中此最勝故。又此位忍無退墮故名為忍法。此忍善根安足增進皆法念住，與前有別。然此忍法有下中上，下中二品與頂法同，謂具觀察四聖諦境及能具修十六行相；上品有異，唯觀欲苦，與世第一相隣接故。由此義準，煖等善根皆能具緣三界苦等義已成立，無簡別故。謂瑜伽師於色無色對治道等一一聖諦行相所緣漸減漸略，乃至但有二唸作意思惟欲界苦聖諦境，齊此以前名中忍位。從此位無間起勝善根一行一剎那名上品忍，此善根起不相續故。上品忍無間生世第一法。如上品忍緣欲苦諦修一行相唯一剎那，此有漏故名為世間，是最勝故名為第一。此有漏法世間中勝，是故名為世第一法。有士用力，離同類因，引聖道生，故名最勝。如是煖等四種善根，念住性故皆慧為體，若並助伴皆五蘊性。然除彼得，勿諸聖者煖等善根重現前故。

The treatise says: Having cultivated the foundation of mindfulness of dharmas that takes common characteristics together, as it gradually matures up to the highest of the high grades, after this foundation of mindfulness the first wholesome root that accords with decisive discernment arises, called the dharma of warmth. This dharma is called warmth because warmth is the prior sign of the fire of the noble path that burns the firewood of the afflictions, like the prior sign of a fire. Because this wholesome root of warmth has a long duration, it can completely observe the objects of the four noble truths and can fully cultivate the sixteen aspects. In contemplating the noble truth of suffering, one cultivates four aspects: first, impermanence; second, suffering; third, emptiness; and fourth, non-self. In contemplating the noble truth of the origin, one cultivates four aspects: first, cause; second, origin; third, arising; and fourth, condition. In contemplating the noble truth of cessation, one cultivates four aspects: first, cessation; second, peace; third, excellence; and fourth, escape. In contemplating the noble truth of the path, one cultivates four aspects: first, path; second, suchness; third, practice; and fourth, deliverance. The differences of these aspects will be explained later. As this wholesome root of warmth in its lower, middle, and upper grades gradually grows to completion, a wholesome root arises called the dharma of the summit; because it is more superior in transformation, it is given a different name. Among the wholesome roots that waver, this dharma is the highest, like the top of a person's head, so it is called the dharma of the summit. Or, because it is the boundary between advancing and retreating, like the top of a mountain, it is called the summit. This too, like warmth, completely observes the four truths and can fully cultivate the sixteen aspects. These two wholesome roots, warmth and summit, are only the foundation of mindfulness of dharmas when first taking a footing. For what meaning is it called first taking a footing? Because whatever wholesome root first, by the sixteen aspects, treads the traces of the four noble truths; later, when advancing, it has all four foundations of mindfulness. What was attained earlier does not appear later, because one does not give rise to a mind of respect for it. As this wholesome root of the summit in its lower, middle, and upper grades gradually grows to completion, a wholesome root arises called the dharma of acceptance, because among those that can accept the principle of the four truths, this is the highest. Also, at this stage acceptance has no retreat or falling, so it is called the dharma of acceptance. For this wholesome root of acceptance, both taking a footing and advancing are the foundation of mindfulness of dharmas, which differs from before. However, this dharma of acceptance has lower, middle, and upper grades; the lower and middle grades are the same as the dharma of the summit, namely completely observing the objects of the four noble truths and being able to fully cultivate the sixteen aspects; the upper grade differs, observing only the suffering of the desire realm, since it is adjacent to the highest worldly dharma. By this meaning it is established that the wholesome roots of warmth and the rest can fully take the suffering and so on of the three realms as object, there being no distinction. That is, for the yogi, the aspects and objects of each of the noble truths in the counteracting path of the form and formless realms gradually diminish and abbreviate, until there are only two moments of attention reflecting on the object of the noble truth of suffering of the desire realm; up to here is called the middle acceptance. From this stage, a superior wholesome root arising without interval, of one aspect and one moment, is called the upper grade of acceptance, because this wholesome root does not continue. Without interval after the upper grade of acceptance the highest worldly dharma arises. As the upper grade of acceptance cultivates one aspect, the suffering of the desire realm, for only one moment, since it is defiled it is called worldly and since it is the most excellent it is called highest. This defiled dharma is the highest in the world, and therefore is called the highest worldly dharma. It has the power of a person's effort, is apart from a cause of the same kind, and draws forth the noble path, so it is called most excellent. These four wholesome roots such as warmth, being of the nature of foundations of mindfulness, all have wisdom as their substance; if their companions are included, they are of the nature of the five aggregates. However, excepting acquisition, so that the noble ones' wholesome roots of warmth and the rest do not appear again.

此中煖法初安足時，緣三諦法念住現在修未來四，隨一行相現在修未來四。緣滅諦法念住現在修未來一，隨一行相現在修未來四。由此種性先未曾得，要同分者方能修故。後增進時緣三諦，隨一念住現在修未來四，隨一行相現在修未來十六。緣滅諦法念住現在修未來四，隨一行相現在修未來十六，由此種性先已曾得，不同分者亦能修故。頂初安足，緣四諦法念住現在修未來四，隨一行相現在修未來十六。後增進時，緣三諦隨一念住現在修未來四，隨一行相現在修未來十六。緣滅諦法念住現在修未來四，隨一行相現在修未來十六。忍初安足及後增進，緣四諦法念住現在修未來四，隨一行相現在修未來十六。然於增進略所緣時，隨略彼所緣，不修彼行相。世第一法，緣欲苦諦法念住現在修未來四，隨一行相現在修未來四，無異分故、似見道故。已辯所生善根相體，今次應辯此差別義。頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) Here, at the time of first taking a footing in warmth, the foundation of mindfulness of dharmas that takes three truths as object cultivates four in the future in the present; and any one aspect cultivates four in the future in the present. The foundation of mindfulness of dharmas that takes the truth of cessation cultivates one in the future in the present; any one aspect cultivates four in the future in the present. This is because this lineage was not previously obtained, and only those of the same class can cultivate it. Later, when advancing, the foundation of mindfulness that takes three truths cultivates four in the future in the present, and any one aspect cultivates sixteen in the future in the present. The foundation of mindfulness of dharmas that takes the truth of cessation cultivates four in the future in the present, and any one aspect cultivates sixteen in the future in the present, because this lineage has already been obtained before, and even those not of the same class can cultivate it. At the first taking a footing in the summit, the foundation of mindfulness of dharmas that takes the four truths cultivates four in the future in the present, and any one aspect cultivates sixteen in the future in the present. When later advancing, any one foundation of mindfulness taking three truths cultivates four in the future in the present, and any one aspect cultivates sixteen in the future in the present. The foundation of mindfulness of dharmas that takes the truth of cessation cultivates four in the future in the present, and any one aspect cultivates sixteen in the future in the present. At the first taking a footing in acceptance and at later advancing, the foundation of mindfulness of dharmas that takes the four truths cultivates four in the future in the present, and any one aspect cultivates sixteen in the future in the present. However, when advancing and abbreviating the objects, as the objects are abbreviated, one does not cultivate their aspects. The highest worldly dharma, the foundation of mindfulness of dharmas that takes the suffering of the desire realm, cultivates four in the future in the present, and any one aspect cultivates four in the future in the present, because there is no different class and because it resembles the path of seeing. Having discussed the characteristics and substance of the wholesome roots that arise, next one should discuss their differences. The verse says:

此順決擇分，四皆修所成，

These factors that accord with decisive discernment are all four born of cultivation,

六地二或七，依欲界身九，

of six grounds, two, or seven; relying on the desire-realm body there are nine,

三女男得二，第四女亦爾。

the three are obtained by women and men, two are obtained; the fourth likewise by women.

聖由失地捨，異生由命終，

The noble ones abandon them by losing the ground, ordinary beings by the end of life;

初二亦退捨，依本必見諦，

the first two also fall back and are abandoned; relying on the root they necessarily see the truths;

捨已得非先，二捨性非得。

what is abandoned and what is obtained are not the same as before; two are abandoned by nature, not by attainment.

論曰：此煖、頂、忍、世第一法四殊勝善根名順決擇分。依何義建立順決擇分名？決謂決斷，擇謂簡擇。決斷簡擇謂諸聖道，以諸聖道能斷疑故，及能分別四諦相故。分謂分段，此言意顯所順唯是見道一分，決擇之分故得決擇分名。此四為緣引決擇分，順益彼故得順彼名，故此名為順決擇分。如是四種皆修所成，非聞思所成，唯等引地故。四中前二是下品攝，以俱可動猶可退故。忍中品攝，勝前二故、有世第一為其上故。世第一法獨是上品。此四善根皆依六地，謂四靜慮、未至、中間。欲界中無，闕等引故。餘上地亦無，見道眷屬故。又無色界心不緣欲界故，欲界先應遍知斷故。此四善根能感色界五蘊異熟為圓滿因，不能牽引，憎背有故。或聲為顯二有異說，謂煖、頂二。尊者妙音說：依前六及欲七地，此四善根依欲身起，人天九處除北俱盧，前三善根三洲初起，後生天處亦續現前。第四善根天處亦起，此無初後一剎那故。此四善根唯依男女，前三男女俱通得二，第四女身亦得二種。依男唯得男身善根，已得女身非擇滅故。聖依此地得此善根，失此地時善根方捨，失地言顯遷生上地。異生於地若失不失，但失眾同分，必捨此善根。初二善根亦由退捨，由死退捨唯異生非聖，由失地捨唯聖非異生。忍及世第一，異生亦無退。依根本地起煖等善根，彼於此生必定得見諦，厭生死心極猛利故。若先捨已後重得時，所得必非先之所捨。如捨已重得別解脫律儀，以未曾熟修大功用成故。若先已得煖等善根，經生故捨。遇了分位善說法師便生頂等，若不遇者還從本修。失退二捨非得為性，退必起過，失不必然。得此善根有何勝利？頌曰：

The treatise says: These four superior wholesome roots, heat (usmagata), summit (murdhan), patience (ksanti), and the supreme worldly dharma (laukikagradharma), are called the stages conducive to penetration (nirvedhabhagiya). On what meaning is the name "conducive to penetration" established? "Penetration" means decisive cutting, and "discernment" means selection; this refers to the noble paths, because the noble paths can cut off doubt and can distinguish the characteristics of the four truths. "Part" means a segment; this word shows that what is followed is only a portion of the path of seeing, and the portion of penetration obtains the name "portion of penetration." These four serve as conditions that lead to the portion of penetration and obtain the name "conducive to that" because they favor and benefit it; hence they are called conducive to penetration. All four are accomplished by cultivation, not by hearing or reflection, because they exist only in the grounds of concentration. Of the four, the first two are of the lower grade, because both can move and can still regress. Patience is of the middle grade, being superior to the first two and having the supreme worldly dharma above it. The supreme worldly dharma alone is of the upper grade. These four wholesome roots all depend on six grounds, namely the four dhyanas, the preliminary concentration, and the intermediate dhyana. They do not exist in the desire realm, since concentration is lacking. They also do not exist in the higher grounds, since they are the retinue of the path of seeing. Also, the mind of the formless realm does not take the desire realm as object, and the desire realm must first be fully known and cut off. These four wholesome roots can bring about the ripened result of the five aggregates of the form realm as a complete cause, but cannot draw it forth, because of aversion to existence. Or the word "and" shows that there are two different views, for heat and summit. The Venerable Miaoyin said: they depend on the previous six grounds plus the desire realm, seven grounds in all; these four wholesome roots arise depending on a desire-realm body, in the nine places of humans and gods except Uttarakuru; the first three roots first arise in the three continents, and when one is later born in a heaven they may continue to appear. The fourth wholesome root may also arise in the heavens, since it has no first or last moment of one instant. These four wholesome roots depend only on male or female bodies: the first three are obtained in both male and female, and the fourth can be obtained by a female body in two ways. Depending on a male body one obtains only a male body's wholesome roots, because a female body has already been obtained by cessation not through discrimination. A noble one relying on this ground obtains these wholesome roots, and when this ground is lost the wholesome roots are given up; "losing the ground" shows moving to a higher ground. An ordinary person, whether or not he loses the ground, necessarily gives up these wholesome roots once he loses the common class. The first two wholesome roots are also given up through regression; those who give them up through death and regression are only ordinary persons and not noble ones, while those who give them up by losing the ground are only noble ones and not ordinary persons. Patience and the supreme worldly dharma do not regress even in ordinary persons. Heat and the other wholesome roots arising on the fundamental ground will surely lead one to see the truths in this life, because the mind of aversion to birth and death is extremely fierce. If one has given them up and obtains them again, what is obtained is certainly not what was given up before. As when one gives up and again obtains individual liberation discipline, it is because one has never practiced it with great effort. If one has already obtained heat and the other wholesome roots, they are given up after passing through lives; if one meets a good Dharma teacher of the corresponding stage one gives rise to summit and so on, and if one does not, one must cultivate again from the beginning. Loss and regression, the two kinds of giving up, are not by nature obtaining; regression necessarily gives rise to an offense, but loss does not necessarily. What advantages are there in obtaining these wholesome roots? The verse says:

煖必至涅槃，頂終不斷善，

Heat surely reaches nirvana; summit never cuts off the wholesome,

忍不墮惡趣，第一入離生。

Patience does not fall into evil destinies; the supreme worldly dharma enters the correct nature and leaves birth.

論曰：四善根中若得煖法，雖有退斷善根造無間業墮惡趣等，而無久流轉，必至涅槃故。若爾，何殊順解脫分？若無障礙，去見諦近，此與見道行相同故。若得頂法，雖有退等，而增畢竟不斷善根。若得忍時，雖命終捨住異生位，而增無退，不造無間，不墮惡趣。然頌但說不墮惡趣言，義準已知不造無間業，造無間業者必墮惡趣故。忍位無退，如前已辯。此位不墮諸惡趣者，已遠趣彼業煩惱故。若至忍位，於少趣生處身有惑中得不生法故。趣謂諸惡趣。生謂卵濕生。處謂無想、北俱盧、大梵處。身謂扇搋、半擇迦、二形身。有謂第八等有。惑謂見所斷惑。此於下上位，隨所應而得，謂於下忍得惡趣不生，所餘不生至上忍方得。得世第一法，雖住異生位，而能趣入正性離生。頌雖不言離命終捨，既無間入正性離生，義準已成無命終捨。何緣唯此能入離生？已得異生非擇滅故，能如無間道捨異生性故。此四善根各有三品，由聲聞等種性別故。隨何種性善根已生，彼可移轉向餘乘不？頌曰：

The treatise says: Among the four wholesome roots, if one obtains heat, though one may regress, cut off wholesome roots, commit acts of immediate retribution and fall into evil destinies, still one will not wander long and will surely reach nirvana. If so, what is the difference from the stage conducive to liberation? If there is no obstacle, one is close to seeing the truths, because the mode of operation is the same as the path of seeing. If one obtains summit, though one may regress, one will certainly not cut off the wholesome roots. When one obtains patience, though one may die and give up the ordinary-person stage, one will not regress, will not commit acts of immediate retribution, and will not fall into evil destinies. However, the verse says only that one does not fall into evil destinies; by implication it is already known that one does not commit acts of immediate retribution, since one who commits them must fall into evil destinies. That there is no regression at the stage of patience has been explained above. That one does not fall into evil destinies at this stage is because one is already far from the karma and afflictions that lead there. Upon reaching the stage of patience, one obtains the non-arising dharma with regard to a few destinies, births, places, bodies, existences, and delusions. "Destinies" are the evil destinies. "Births" are egg-born and moisture-born births. "Places" are the realm of non-perception, Uttarakuru, and the Great Brahma heaven. "Bodies" are those of eunuchs, half-males, and hermaphrodites. "Existences" are the eighth existence and so on. "Delusions" are delusions cut off by seeing. These are obtained at lower and higher stages as appropriate; that is, at lesser patience one obtains non-arising in evil destinies, and the other non-arisings are obtained only at higher patience. When one obtains the supreme worldly dharma, though one is still at the ordinary-person stage, one can enter the correct nature and leave birth. Though the verse does not speak of not dying in between, since one enters the correct nature immediately and without interval, it is established by implication that there is no death in between. Why can only this enter and leave birth? Because the cessation not through discrimination of the ordinary person has been obtained, and because it can, like the unobstructed path, give up the nature of an ordinary person. Each of these four wholesome roots has three grades, because of the differences in lineage such as hearer. Once the wholesome roots of one lineage have arisen, can they be transferred to another vehicle? The verse says:

轉聲聞種性，二成佛三餘，

The hearer lineage may be converted: the two to Buddhahood, the three to the others,

麟角佛無轉，一坐成覺故。

The rhinoceros-horn and the Buddha do not convert, because they attain awakening in a single sitting.

論曰：聲聞種性煖頂已生，容可轉成無上正覺，彼若得忍無成佛理，謂於惡趣已超越故。菩提薩埵利物為懷，為化有情必往惡趣，彼忍種性不可迴轉，是故定無得成佛義。聲聞種性煖頂忍三，皆有可轉成獨覺義，在佛乘外故說為餘。麟角佛言顯麟角喻及無上覺。煖等善根並無移轉向餘乘義，皆以第四靜慮為依，一坐便成自乘覺故。第四靜慮是不傾動最極明利三摩地故，堪為麟角喻無上覺所依。此中覺言顯盡、無生智，後當辯，此是菩提性故。言一坐者，從煖善根乃至菩提，不起於座。有餘師說：從不淨觀不起於座乃至菩提。有餘獨覺異麟角喻，起彼種性初二善根，轉向餘乘，理無遮礙。頗有此生創修此行，即此生引起順決擇分耶？不爾。云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: For one of the hearer lineage in whom heat and summit have arisen, it is possible to convert to unsurpassed correct awakening; if he obtains patience, there is no reason to become a Buddha, because he has already transcended the evil destinies. A Bodhisattva has benefiting beings at heart and must go to the evil destinies to teach beings; the patience of that lineage cannot be turned back, and so there is certainly no way to become a Buddha. For the hearer lineage, all three, heat, summit, and patience, can be converted into the meaning of pratyekabuddha, which is outside the Buddha vehicle and so is called "the others." The phrase "rhinoceros-horn and the Buddha" shows the simile of the rhinoceros horn and unsurpassed awakening. The wholesome roots of heat and so on have no meaning of transferring to another vehicle, all depending on the fourth dhyana, because they attain their own vehicle's awakening in a single sitting. The fourth dhyana is the most immovable and most clear and sharp samadhi, and so is fit as the support for the simile of the rhinoceros horn and for unsurpassed awakening. Here the word "awakening" shows the knowledge of extinction and the knowledge of non-arising, which will be explained later, because this is the nature of bodhi. "A single sitting" means that from the wholesome root of heat up to bodhi, one does not rise from the seat. Other masters say: from the contemplation of impurity one does not rise from the seat up to bodhi. Some other pratyekabuddhas differ from the rhinoceros-horn simile; for them, the first two wholesome roots of that lineage may arise and then turn to another vehicle, and there is no reason this is blocked. Is there anyone who begins this practice in this life and in this very life brings forth the stage conducive to penetration? No. How so? The verse says:

前順解脫分，速三生解脫，

The former, the stage conducive to liberation, at fastest brings liberation in three lives,

聞思成三業，殖在人三洲。

Accomplished by hearing and reflection, of the three kinds of action, planted among humans in the three continents.

論曰：順決擇分今生起者，必前生起順解脫分。諸有創殖順解脫分，極速三生方得解脫。謂初生起順解脫分，第二生起順決擇分，第三生入聖乃至得解脫。譬如下種、苗成、結實，三位不同。身入法性、成熟、解脫，三位亦爾。傳說如是順解脫分唯聞思所成，通三業為體。雖就最勝唯是意業，而此思願攝起身語亦得名為順解脫分。有施一食持一戒等深樂解脫，願力所持便名種殖順解脫分。殖順解脫分唯人三洲，餘厭離般若，如應無故，遇佛出世殖此善根。有餘師言：亦遇獨覺。已因便說順解脫分，入觀次第是正所論。於中已明諸加行道，世第一法為其後邊，應說從斯復生何道？頌曰：

The treatise says: When the stage conducive to penetration arises in this life, the stage conducive to liberation must have arisen in a former life. Those who have first planted the stage conducive to liberation will attain liberation, at the very fastest, in three lives: in the first life the stage conducive to liberation arises, in the second life the stage conducive to penetration arises, and in the third life one enters the noble state and even attains liberation. Like sowing seed, the sprout growing, and bearing fruit, which are three different stages, so the body entering the nature of the Dharma, ripening, and liberation are three stages. It is said that this stage conducive to liberation is accomplished only by hearing and reflection and has the three kinds of action as its essence. Though at its best it is only mental action, the volition and vow that include and give rise to bodily and verbal action can also be called the stage conducive to liberation. For one who gives a meal or keeps a single precept with deep joy in liberation, held by the force of vow, this is called planting the stage conducive to liberation. The stage conducive to liberation is planted only by humans in the three continents; for others, aversion and prajna should be absent, and one plants this wholesome root by meeting a Buddha appearing in the world. Other masters say: one may also meet a pratyekabuddha. Having incidentally spoken of the stage conducive to liberation, the order of entering contemplation is the proper subject here. Among these, the preparatory paths have been made clear, with the supreme worldly dharma as their last boundary; what path should be said to arise next from this? The verse says:

世第一無間，即緣欲界苦，

Immediately after the supreme worldly dharma, taking the suffering of the desire realm as object,

生無漏法忍，忍次生法智，

Undefiled patience of the dharma arises; after patience arises knowledge of the dharma,

次緣餘界苦，生類忍類智，

Next, taking the suffering of the other realms as object, patience of the subsequent and knowledge of the subsequent arise,

緣集滅道諦，各生四亦然，

With the truths of origin, cessation, and path as objects, four arise for each, likewise,

如是十六心，名聖諦現觀，

These sixteen moments of mind are called direct realization of the noble truths,

此總有三種，謂見緣事別。

Which are in general of three kinds: realization by seeing, by object, and by function.

論曰：從世第一善根無間，即緣欲界苦聖諦境，有無漏攝法智忍生，此忍名為苦法智忍，為顯此忍是無漏故，舉後等流以為標別。此能生法智，是法智因，得法智忍名，如花果樹。即此名入正性離生，亦復名入正性決定。由此是初入正性離生，亦是初入正性決定故。經說正性，所謂涅槃。或正性言，因諸聖道。生謂煩惱，或根未熟。聖道能越，故名離生，能決趣涅槃，或決了諦相故。諸聖道得決定名，至此位中說名為入。此忍生已得聖者名，此在未來捨異生性。謂許此忍未來生時有此用非餘，如燈及生相。有餘師說：世第一法捨異生性，此義不然，彼此同名世間法故、性相違故。亦無有失，如上怨肩能害怨命。有餘師說：此二共捨，如無間道解脫道故。此忍無間即緣欲苦有法智生，名苦法智。應知此智亦無漏攝，前無漏言遍流後故。如緣欲界苦聖諦境，有苦法忍、苦法智生。如是復於法智無間總緣餘界苦聖諦境，有類智忍生，名苦類智忍。此忍無間即緣此境有類智生，名苦類智。最初證知諸法真理故名法智，此後境智與前相似故得類名，以後隨前而證境故。如緣苦諦欲界及餘，生法類忍、法類智四，緣餘三諦各四亦然。謂復於前苦類智後，次緣欲界集聖諦境有法智忍生，名集法智忍。此忍無間即緣欲集有法智生，名集法智。次緣餘界集聖諦境有類智忍生，名集類智忍。此忍無間即緣此境有類智生，名集類智。次緣欲界滅聖諦境有法智忍生，名滅法智忍。此忍無間即緣欲滅有法智生，名滅法智。次緣餘界滅聖諦境有類智忍生，名滅類智忍。此忍無間即緣此境有類智生，名滅類智。次緣欲界道聖諦境有法智忍生，名道法智忍。此忍無間即緣欲道有法智生，名道法智。次緣餘界道聖諦境有類智忍生，名道類智忍。此忍無間即緣此境有類智生，名道類智。如是次第有十六心，總說名為聖諦現觀。

The treatise says: Immediately after the wholesome root of the supreme worldly dharma, taking the noble truth of suffering in the desire realm as object, undefiled patience in the knowledge of the dharma arises; this patience is called the patience of the knowledge of the dharma of suffering. To show that this patience is undefiled, the later outflowing is cited as a mark of distinction. It can give rise to knowledge of the dharma and is the cause of the knowledge of the dharma, and obtains the name patience in the knowledge of the dharma, like a flowering fruit tree. This is called entering the correct nature and leaving birth, and also called entering the correct nature and certainty, because it is the first entry into the correct nature and leaving of birth, and the first entry into the correct nature and certainty. The sutra speaks of the correct nature, which is nirvana. Or the term "correct nature" refers to the noble paths. "Birth" means afflictions, or faculties not yet ripened. The noble path can pass beyond these, and so it is called leaving birth; it can decisively head toward nirvana, or decisively understand the characteristics of the truths. The noble paths obtain the name "certainty," and at this stage it is said to be "entering." Once this patience has arisen, one obtains the name of a noble one; here, in the future one gives up the nature of an ordinary person. That is, it is allowed that when this patience arises in the future it has this function and nothing else does, like a lamp and the characteristic of arising. Other masters say: the supreme worldly dharma gives up the nature of an ordinary person; this meaning is not so, because they share the name of worldly dharma and their natures contradict. There is also no fault, as with an enemy on the shoulders who can harm the enemy's life. Other masters say: these two give it up together, like the unobstructed path and the path of liberation. Immediately after this patience, taking suffering in the desire realm as object, knowledge of the dharma arises, called the knowledge of the dharma of suffering. One should know that this knowledge is also undefiled, as the earlier word "undefiled" extends to what follows. As patience and knowledge of the dharma of suffering arise with the noble truth of suffering in the desire realm as object, so immediately after knowledge of the dharma, taking the noble truth of suffering in the other realms collectively as object, patience of the subsequent knowledge arises, called the patience of the subsequent knowledge of suffering. Immediately after this patience, taking this object, subsequent knowledge arises, called the subsequent knowledge of suffering. Because the true principle of dharmas is first realized, it is called knowledge of the dharma; thereafter, since the object and knowledge resemble the earlier ones, they obtain the name "subsequent," since later ones realize the object following the earlier. As with the truth of suffering in the desire realm and in the others, four, patience and knowledge of the dharma and of the subsequent, arise, so each of the other three truths has four likewise. That is, after the earlier subsequent knowledge of suffering, taking the noble truth of origin in the desire realm as object, patience of the knowledge of the dharma arises, called patience of the knowledge of the dharma of origin. Immediately after this patience, taking the origin in the desire realm, knowledge of the dharma arises, called knowledge of the dharma of origin. Next, taking the noble truth of origin in the other realms as object, patience of the subsequent knowledge arises, called patience of the subsequent knowledge of origin. Immediately after this, taking this object, subsequent knowledge arises, called subsequent knowledge of origin. Next, taking the noble truth of cessation in the desire realm as object, patience of the knowledge of the dharma arises, called patience of the knowledge of the dharma of cessation. Immediately after, taking cessation in the desire realm, knowledge of the dharma arises, called knowledge of the dharma of cessation. Next, taking the noble truth of cessation in the other realms, patience of the subsequent knowledge arises, called patience of the subsequent knowledge of cessation. Immediately after, taking this object, subsequent knowledge arises, called subsequent knowledge of cessation. Next, taking the noble truth of the path in the desire realm, patience of the knowledge of the dharma arises, called patience of the knowledge of the dharma of the path. Immediately after, taking the path in the desire realm, knowledge of the dharma arises, called knowledge of the dharma of the path. Next, taking the noble truth of the path in the other realms, patience of the subsequent knowledge arises, called patience of the subsequent knowledge of the path. Immediately after, taking this object, subsequent knowledge arises, called subsequent knowledge of the path. In this order there are sixteen moments of mind, collectively called direct realization of the noble truths.

此中餘部有作是言：於諸諦中唯頓現觀。然彼意趣應更推尋，彼現觀言無差別故。詳諸現觀總有三種，謂見、緣、事有差別故。唯無漏慧於諸諦境現見分明名見現觀，此無漏慧並餘相應同一所緣名緣現觀，此諸能緣並餘俱有戒生相等不相應法同一事業名事現觀。見苦諦時於苦聖諦具三現觀，於餘三諦唯事現觀，謂斷證修。若諸諦中約見現觀說頓現觀，理必不然，以諸諦中行相別故。若言以一無我行相總見諸諦，則不應用苦等行相見苦諦等，如是便與契經相違。如契經言：諸聖弟子以苦行相思惟於苦，以集行相思惟於集，以滅行相思惟於滅，以道行相思惟於道，無漏作意相應擇法。若言此經說修道位，此亦不然，如見修故。若彼復謂見一諦時，於餘諦中得自在故說頓現觀，理亦無失。然於如是現觀中間有起不起，別應思擇。若彼復謂於見苦時即能斷集證滅修道說頓現觀，理亦無失，由先已說見苦諦時於餘三諦中有事現觀故。依見現觀，於契經中見有誠文，說漸現觀。如契經說：佛告長者：於四聖諦非頓現觀，必漸現觀，乃至廣說。如是等有三經，一一經有別喻。若謂有經作如是說，但於苦諦無惑無疑，於佛亦無，故頓現觀。此亦非證，依定不行。或必當斷，密意說故。已辯現觀具十六心，此十六心為依何地？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) Here some other schools say: with regard to the truths there is only simultaneous direct realization. But their intention should be investigated further, because their term "direct realization" makes no distinctions. Examining direct realizations, there are in general three kinds, because there are differences of seeing, object, and function. When undefiled wisdom sees the objects of the truths clearly, it is called direct realization by seeing. When this undefiled wisdom and the other associated factors take the same object, it is called direct realization by object. When these subjects of cognition and the other concurrent factors such as moral discipline, born together, and the dissociated dharmas perform the same function, it is called direct realization by function. When one sees the truth of suffering, one has all three direct realizations with regard to the noble truth of suffering, and only direct realization by function with regard to the other three truths, namely cutting off, realizing, and cultivating. If one speaks of simultaneous direct realization in terms of direct realization by seeing among the truths, the reasoning is certainly not so, because the modes of operation among the truths differ. If one says that all the truths are seen together with the one aspect of selflessness, then one should not use the aspects of suffering and so on to see the truth of suffering and so on, and that would contradict the sutra. As the sutra says: The noble disciples contemplate suffering with the aspect of suffering, origin with the aspect of origin, cessation with the aspect of cessation, and the path with the aspect of the path, in association with undefiled attention and discernment of dharmas. If one says that this sutra speaks of the stage of the path of cultivation, it is also not so, because of seeing and cultivation. If they further say that when one sees one truth one gains mastery over the other truths and hence speaks of simultaneous direct realization, the reasoning also has no fault. However, in such direct realization there may be arising and non-arising in between, which should be considered separately. If they further say that when one sees suffering one can cut off origin, realize cessation, and cultivate the path, and so speak of simultaneous direct realization, the reasoning also has no fault, since it was already said earlier that when one sees the truth of suffering there is direct realization by function in the other three truths. As for direct realization by seeing, in the sutras there is sincere text about gradual direct realization. As the sutra says: The Buddha told the householder: With respect to the four noble truths there is no simultaneous direct realization, but necessarily gradual direct realization, and so on at length. There are three such sutras, each with a different simile. If one says there is a sutra which says that when one is without delusion or doubt about the truth of suffering, and also without it about the Buddha, hence there is simultaneous direct realization, this is also not proof, since it relies on concentration and does not operate; or it speaks with a hidden meaning that something must be cut off. Direct realization has been explained as having sixteen moments of mind; on what ground do these sixteen moments of mind depend? The verse says:

皆與世第一，同依於一地。

All, together with the supreme worldly dharma, depend on the same one ground.

論曰：隨世第一所依諸地，應知即此十六心依。彼依六地，如先已說。何緣必有如是忍智前後次第間雜而起？頌曰：

The treatise says: One should know that these sixteen moments of mind depend on whatever grounds the supreme worldly dharma depends on. They depend on six grounds, as explained earlier. Why must patience and knowledge arise in this order, one after another, interspersed? The verse says:

忍智如次第，無間解脫道。

Patience and knowledge are, in order, the unobstructed path and the path of liberation.

論曰：十六心中忍是無間道，約斷惑得，無能隔礙故。智是解脫道，已解脫惑得，與離繫得俱時起故。具二次第理定應然，猶如世間驅賊閉戶。若謂第二唯無間道與離繫得俱時而生，則此位中於彼彼境應定不起已斷疑智；若謂見位唯忍斷惑，則與本論說九結聚相違。此難不然，諸忍皆是智眷屬故，如王眷屬所作事業名王所作。此十六心皆見諦理，一切可說見道攝耶？不爾。云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Among the sixteen moments of mind, patience is the unobstructed path, because in cutting off delusion it cannot be obstructed. Knowledge is the path of liberation, because it has already been liberated from delusion and arises together with the obtaining of separation. The order of the two is certainly so in reason, like driving out a thief and closing the door in the world. If one says that the second is only the unobstructed path and arises together with the obtaining of separation, then at this stage, knowledge that has cut off doubt should certainly not arise about each of those objects; if one says that at the stage of seeing only patience cuts off delusion, this contradicts the original treatise's account of the nine bundles of fetters. This objection is not so, because the patiences are all the retinue of knowledge, as the work done by a king's retinue is called the king's work. These sixteen moments of mind all see the principle of the truths; can all be said to be included in the path of seeing? No. How so? The verse says:

前十五見道，見未曾見故。

The first fifteen are the path of seeing, because they see what has not been seen.

論曰：苦法智忍為初，道類智忍為後，其中總有十五剎那，皆見道所攝，見未見諦故。至第十六道類智時，無一諦理未見今見，如習曾見，故修道攝。豈不爾時觀道類忍是道諦理未見今見？此中約諦不約剎那。非一剎那未見今見可名今見未見諦理，如刈畦稻唯餘一科，不可名為此畦未刈。又道類智是果攝故、頓修八智十六行故、捨前道故、相續起故，如餘修道，非見道攝。然道類智必不退者，任持見道所斷斷故，即由此故應見道攝。此難不然，太過失故。何緣七智亦見道攝？見諸諦理未究竟故，謂未周遍見諸諦理中間起故，亦見道攝。已說見修二道生異，當依此道分位差別建立眾聖補特伽羅。且依見道十五心位建立眾聖有差別者，頌曰：

The treatise says: From patience of the knowledge of the dharma of suffering as the first to patience of the subsequent knowledge of the path as the last, there are fifteen moments in all, all included in the path of seeing, because they see truths not yet seen. When it comes to the sixteenth, subsequent knowledge of the path, there is no truth not yet seen and now seen, as with something previously seen in practice, and so it is included in the path of cultivation. But is it not the case that at that time, contemplating the patience of the subsequent knowledge of the path, the principle of the truth of the path is unseen and now seen? Here it is in terms of the truth and not of the moment. One moment's not-seeing and now seeing cannot be called now seeing the principle of a truth not yet seen; as when reaping a plot of rice with only one clump left, it cannot be said the plot has not been reaped. Also, subsequent knowledge of the path is included in the fruit, and it cultivates eight knowledges and sixteen aspects together, gives up the former path, and arises continuously, like the other paths of cultivation, and so it is not included in the path of seeing. However, subsequent knowledge of the path certainly does not regress, and it sustains the cutting off of what is cut off by the path of seeing, and by this reason it should be included in the path of seeing. This objection is not so, since it would be an excess. Why are the seven knowledges also included in the path of seeing? Because they see the principle of the truths but not yet to completion, that is, they arise in the middle before all the principles of the truths have been fully seen, and so are also included in the path of seeing. The differences in arising of the paths of seeing and cultivation have been explained; now the various noble persons should be established by the differences in the stages of these paths. First, those established by the fifteen moments of the path of seeing are given in the verse:

名隨信法行，由根鈍利別，

Called the follower by faith and the follower of the Dharma, distinguished by dull or sharp faculties,

具修惑斷一，至五向初果，

Complete with cultivation, delusions cut off one, up to five, facing the first fruit,

斷次三向二，離八地向三。

Cutting off the next three, facing the second; having left eight grounds, facing the third.

論曰：見道位中聖者有二，一隨信行、二隨法行，由根鈍利別立二名，諸鈍根名隨信行者，諸利根名隨法行者。由信隨行名隨信行，彼有隨信行，名隨信行者，或由串習此隨信行以成其性，故名隨信行者，彼先信他隨行義故。准此應釋隨法行者，彼於先時由自披閱契經等法隨行義故。即二聖者，由於修惑具斷有殊立為三向，謂彼二聖若於先時未以世道斷修斷惑名為具縛，或先已斷欲界一品乃至五品，至此位中名初果向，趣初果故。言初果者，謂預流果，此於一切沙門果中必初得故。若先已斷欲界六品或七八品，至此位中名第二果向，趣第二果故。第二果者，謂一來果，遍得果中此第二故。若先已離欲界九品，或先已斷初定一品，乃至具離無所有處，至此位中名第三果向，趣第三果故。第三果者，謂不還果，數準前釋。次依修道道類智時建立眾聖有差別者，頌曰：

The treatise says: Among the noble ones in the stage of the path of seeing there are two: first, the follower by faith (sraddhanusarin), and second, the follower of the Dharma (dharmanusarin); the two names are established by dull or sharp faculties, those of dull faculties being called followers by faith, and those of sharp faculties followers of the Dharma. One who follows by faith is called a follower by faith; he has the following by faith, hence the name; or by repeated practice this following by faith has become his nature, and so he is called a follower by faith, since he first believes others and follows their meaning. By this the follower of the Dharma should be explained: formerly, by reading the sutras and other dharmas himself, he followed their meaning. These two noble ones are established as three facing stages according to the difference in how fully they have cut off the delusions of cultivation. If these two noble ones have not previously cut off the delusions of cultivation by worldly paths, they are called fully bound; or if they have previously cut off one to five grades in the desire realm, at this stage they are called facing the first fruit, since they are heading to the first fruit. The first fruit is the fruit of stream-entry, which is necessarily obtained first among all the fruits of a sramana. If they have previously cut off six grades in the desire realm, or seven or eight, at this stage they are called facing the second fruit. The second fruit is the fruit of once-returning, which is the second among all the fruits obtained. If they have previously left the nine grades of the desire realm, or previously cut off one grade of the first dhyana, up to having fully left the sphere of nothingness, at this stage they are called facing the third fruit. The third fruit is the fruit of non-returning, with numbers explained as above. Next, the various noble ones established at the time of the subsequent knowledge of the path in the path of cultivation are given in the verse:

至第十六心，隨三向住果，

Reaching the sixteenth moment, following the three facings, they abide in the fruit,

名信解見至，亦由鈍利別。

Called the one released by faith (sraddhadhimukta) and the one attained by view (drstiprapta), also distinguished by dull and sharp.

論曰：即前隨信隨法行者，至第十六道類智心名為住果，不復名向。隨前三向今住三果，謂前預流向今住預流果，前一來向今住一來果，前不還向今住不還果。阿羅漢果必無初得，見道無容斷修惑故，世道無容離有頂故。至住果位捨得二名，謂不復名隨信法行，轉得信解、見至二名，此亦由根鈍利差別。諸鈍根者先名隨信行今名信解，諸利根者先名隨法行今名見至。此二聖者信慧互增，故標信解、見至名別。何緣先斷欲界修惑一至五等，至第十六道類智心但說名為預流果等，非後果向？頌曰：

The treatise says: The same followers by faith and of the Dharma, when they reach the sixteenth moment, subsequent knowledge of the path, are called abiding in the fruit and are no longer called facing. Following the earlier three facings they now abide in three fruits: one earlier facing stream-entry now abides in the fruit of stream-entry; one earlier facing once-returning now abides in the fruit of once-returning; one earlier facing non-returning now abides in the fruit of non-returning. The fruit of arhat is certainly not obtained at the first, since the path of seeing cannot cut off the delusions of cultivation and a worldly path cannot leave the peak of existence. When they reach the stage of abiding in the fruit they give up two names and obtain two: they are no longer called followers by faith or of the Dharma, but obtain the two names released by faith and attained by view, which also depend on the difference between dull and sharp faculties. Those of dull faculties, earlier called followers by faith, are now called released by faith; those of sharp faculties, earlier called followers of the Dharma, are now called attained by view. In these two noble ones faith and wisdom mutually increase, and so the names released by faith and attained by view are distinguished. For what reason, for those who earlier cut off one to five grades of the delusions of cultivation in the desire realm, at the sixteenth moment of subsequent knowledge of the path, are they called only the fruit of stream-entry and so on, and not facing a later fruit? The verse says:

諸得果位中，未得勝果道，

Among those who obtain the fruit, one has not yet obtained the path of the higher fruit,

故未起勝道，名住果非向。

And so, since the higher path has not yet arisen, one is called abiding in the fruit and not facing.

論曰：諸得果時於勝果道必定未得，故住果者乃至未起勝果道時，但名住果，不名後向。然諸先斷欲界修惑一至五等，至得果時，此生必定起勝果道。由此先離三靜慮染後依下地入見道者，彼得果已於現生中必能引生後勝果道。若異此者，聖生上地應不可說定成樂根。如是已依先具、倍離及全離欲入見諦者十六心位立眾聖別，當約修惑辯漸次生能對治道分位差別。頌曰：

The treatise says: When one obtains the fruit, one has certainly not yet obtained the path of the higher fruit, and so one who abides in the fruit is called only abiding in the fruit, and not facing a later fruit, until the path of the higher fruit arises. But those who previously cut off one to five grades of the delusions of cultivation in the desire realm will certainly give rise to the path of the higher fruit in this very life when they obtain the fruit. Thus those who previously left the defilement of the three dhyanas and then entered the path of seeing depending on a lower ground will, when they have obtained the fruit, certainly be able to bring forth the later path of the higher fruit in the present life. If it were otherwise, it should not be said that a noble one born in a higher ground certainly attains the faculty of pleasure. In this way the various noble ones have been established at the sixteen moments of those who enter the seeing of the truths with previous completeness, double abandonment, or complete abandonment of desire; now we should explain, with respect to the delusions of cultivation, the differences in the stages of the path of antidote that arises gradually. The verse says:

地地失德九，下中上各三。

In each ground there are nine of fault and virtue, three each of lower, middle, and upper.

論曰：失謂過失，即所治障。德謂功德，即能治道。如先已辯欲修斷惑九品差別，如是上地乃至有頂例亦應爾。如所斷障一一地中各有九品，諸能治道無間解脫九品亦然。失德如何各分九品？謂根本品有下中上，此三各分下中上別，由此失德各分九品，謂下下、下中、下上，中下、中中、中上，上下、上中、上上品。應知此中下下品道勢力能斷上上品障，如是乃至上上品道勢力能斷下下品障。上上品等諸能治德初未有故，此德有時上上品等失已無故。如浣衣位麁垢先除，於後後時漸除細垢。又如麁闇小明能滅，要以大明方滅細闇。失德相對，理亦應然。白法力強、黑法力劣，故剎那頃劣道現行，無始時來展轉增益上品諸惑能令頓斷。如經久時所集眾病，服少良藥能令頓愈。又如長時所集大闇，一剎那頃小燈能滅。已辯失德差別九品，次當依彼立聖者別。且諸有學修道位中總亦名為信解、見至，隨位復有多種差別，先應建立都未斷者。頌曰：

The treatise says: "Fault" means defect, that is, the obstruction to be remedied. "Virtue" means merit, that is, the path that can remedy. As the nine grades of the delusions cut off by cultivation in the desire realm have been explained above, so, by the same reasoning, the higher grounds up to the peak of existence are also like this. As the obstructions to be cut off have nine grades in each ground, so the paths of antidote, the unobstructed paths and paths of liberation, also have nine grades. How is each of fault and virtue divided into nine grades? The basic grades are lower, middle, and upper; each of these three is divided into lower, middle, and upper, and so fault and virtue each have nine grades: lower-lower, lower-middle, lower-upper, middle-lower, middle-middle, middle-upper, upper-lower, upper-middle, upper-upper. One should know that here the force of the lower-lower path can cut off the upper-upper obstruction, and likewise the force of the upper-upper path can cut off the lower-lower obstruction. Because the virtues that can remedy, the upper-upper grade and so on, do not exist at first, and because when this virtue exists at some time the faults of the upper-upper grade and so on no longer exist. As when washing clothes, the coarse dirt is removed first and the fine dirt gradually later. Or as a coarse darkness can be dispelled by a small light, while only a great light can dispel a fine darkness. Fault and virtue are in relation to one another, and the reasoning should be the same. The power of the white dharmas is strong and the black dharmas are weak, and so in a moment a weak path arises and can suddenly cut off the delusions of the upper grades that have been increasing in turn since beginningless time. As the illnesses accumulated over a long time can be suddenly cured by a little good medicine. Or as a great darkness accumulated over a long time can be dispelled in a moment by a small lamp. The nine grades of fault and virtue have been explained; next the noble ones should be established on that basis. Among the learners, those in the stage of the path of cultivation are in general also called released by faith and attained by view, and by stage there are further many differences; first one should establish those who have not cut off anything. The verse says:

未斷修斷失，住果極七返。

One who has not cut off the faults of cultivation, abiding in the fruit, has at most seven returns.

論曰：諸住果者於一切地修所斷失都未斷時名為預流，生極七返。七返言顯七往返生，是人天中各七生義。極言為顯受生最多，非諸預流皆受七返故。契經說極七返生，是彼最多七返生義。諸無漏道總名為流，由此為因趣涅槃故。預言為顯最初至得，彼預流故說名預流。此預流名為目何義？若初得道名為預流，則預流名應目第八。若初得果名為預流，則倍離欲全離欲者至道類智應名預流。此預流名目初得果，然依遍得一切果者初所得果建立此名。一來、不還非定初得，此定初得，故名預流。何緣此名不目第八？以要至得道類智時具得向果無漏道故、具得見修無漏道故。於現觀流遍至得故名預流者，第八不然，故預流名不目第八。彼從此後別於人中，極多結七中有生有，天中亦然，總二十八，皆七等故說極七生，如七處善及七葉樹。毘婆沙師所說如是。若爾，何故契經中言無處無容見圓滿者更可有受第八有義？此契經意約一趣說，若如言執，中有應無。若爾，上流極有頂者，亦應一趣無第八生。依欲界說故無此過。此何為證？為教為理？以何證彼於人天中各受七生、非合受七？以契經說天七及人。飲光部經分明別說於人天處各受七生，由是此中不應固執。若於人趣得預流果，彼還人趣得般涅槃；於天趣得，還於天趣。何緣彼無受第八有？相續齊此必成熟故，聖道種類法應如是。如七步蛇、第四日瘧。又彼有餘七結在故，謂二下分、五上分結，中間雖有聖道現前，餘業力持不證圓寂。至第七有逢無佛法時，彼在居家得阿羅漢果。既得果已必不住家，法爾自得苾芻形相。有言：彼往餘道出家。云何彼名無退墮法？以不生長退墮業故、違彼生長業與果故、強盛善根鎮彼身故、加行意樂俱清淨故。諸有決定墮惡趣業尚不起忍，況得預流。故有頌言：

The treatise says: Those abiding in the fruit who have not yet cut off any of the faults cut off by cultivation in all grounds are called stream-enterers (srotapanna), and are born at most seven times. The words "seven returns" show seven round trips of birth, meaning seven births each among humans and gods. The word "at most" shows the maximum number of births, not that all stream-enterers take seven returns. The sutra says "at most seven returns of birth," which means their maximum is seven births. All undefiled paths are together called the stream, because by this as cause one heads toward nirvana. The word "enter" shows the first arrival, and one who first arrives at that is called a stream-enterer. What does this name "stream-enterer" refer to? If the one who first obtains the path were called a stream-enterer, the name would apply to the eighth. If the one who first obtains the fruit were called a stream-enterer, then those who have doubly left desire or fully left desire, upon reaching subsequent knowledge of the path, should be called stream-enterers. The name stream-enterer refers to the one who first obtains the fruit, but this name is established on the basis of the first-obtained fruit among those who obtain all fruits. Once-returners and non-returners are not necessarily first-obtainers, but this one is certainly a first-obtainer, and so he is called a stream-enterer. Why does this name not refer to the eighth? Because only upon reaching subsequent knowledge of the path does one fully obtain the undefiled paths of facing and fruit, and fully obtain the undefiled paths of seeing and cultivation. One who has fully arrived at the stream of direct realization is called a stream-enterer; the eighth is not so, and so the name stream-enterer does not refer to the eighth. From then on, among humans separately, at most seven intermediate existences and seven births, and likewise among gods, twenty-eight in all, all counted as seven and so on; hence "at most seven births" is said, like "good in seven places" and the seven-leaved tree. This is what the Vaibhasika masters say. If so, why does the sutra say that there is no place, no possibility, that one who has seen perfectly will take an eighth existence? The sense of this sutra is speaking in terms of one destiny; if one took it literally, there should be no intermediate existence. If so, the upstream one who goes to the peak of existence should also have no eighth birth in one destiny. Because it is spoken of in terms of the desire realm, there is no such fault. What is the proof of this, doctrine or reasoning? What proves that they take seven births each among humans and gods, not seven combined? The sutra says "seven among gods and humans." The sutra of the Kasyapiya school clearly and separately says that in the human and heavenly places they each take seven births, and so one should not hold on to it rigidly here. If one obtains the fruit of stream-entry in the human destiny, one returns to the human destiny and attains parinirvana; if one obtains it in the heavenly destiny, one returns to the heavenly destiny. For what reason does one not take an eighth existence? Because the continuum is certainly ripened up to this, as the nature of the noble path's kind of dharma; as with the seven-step snake and the fourth-day fever. Also, there are other seven fetters remaining, namely two lower and five upper fetters; though the noble path appears in the middle, the force of other karma holds one back from realizing perfect peace. At the seventh existence, when one meets a time without Buddha Dharma, one obtains the fruit of arhat as a householder. Having obtained the fruit, one certainly does not remain in the home, and by the nature of things one naturally obtains the form of a bhiksu. Some say: one goes to another path to leave home. How is this person called one not subject to regression? Because he does not grow regressive karma, because it contradicts the karma that makes him grow and the fruit, because strong wholesome roots protect his body, and because his preparatory effort and intention are both pure. Even karma certain to fall into evil destinies does not allow patience to arise, much less obtaining stream-entry. Hence a verse says:

愚作罪小亦墮惡，智為罪大亦脫苦，

A fool commits a small sin and still falls into evil; a wise man commits a great sin and still escapes suffering,

如團鐵小亦瀋水，為缽鐵大亦能浮。

Like a small lump of iron that sinks in water, while iron made into a large bowl can float.

經說預流作苦邊際，依何義立苦邊際名？依齊此生後更無苦，是令後苦不相續義。或苦邊際所謂涅槃，如何涅槃可是所作？除彼得障，故說作言。如言作空，謂毀臺觀。餘位亦有極七返生，然非決定，是故不說。

(The treatise continues:) The sutra says the stream-enterer makes an end of suffering; on what meaning is the name "end of suffering" established? On the meaning that after this life there is no more suffering, so that later suffering does not continue. Or the end of suffering refers to nirvana; how can nirvana be something made? Apart from obtaining it by removing obstacles, the word "made" is spoken, as in "making it empty," which means tearing down a terrace or tower. At other stages too there are at most seven returns of birth, but they are not certain, and so are not mentioned.

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by the Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under imperial decree

分別賢聖品第六之三

Chapter 6, Analysis of the Worthies and Saints, Part 3

已辯住果未斷修惑名為預流，生極七返。今次應辯斷位眾聖，且應建立一來向果。頌曰：

We have explained that one who abides in the fruit and has not cut off the delusions of cultivation is called a stream-enterer, with at most seven returns of birth. Now we should explain the noble ones at the stages of cutting off, and first establish the facing and fruit of once-returning. The verse says:

斷欲三四品，三二生家家，

Cutting off three or four grades of desire, two or three births, a family-to-family one,

斷至五二向，斷六一來果。

Cutting off up to five, facing the second; cutting off six, the fruit of once-returning.

論曰：即預流者進斷修惑，若三緣具轉名家家：一由斷惑，斷欲修斷三四品故。二由成根，得能治彼無漏根故。三由受生，更受欲有三二生故。頌中但說初後緣者，預流果後說進斷惑，成能治彼諸無漏根。義準已成，故不具說。然復應說三二生者，以有增進，於所受生或少或無或過此故。何緣此無斷五品者？以斷第五必斷第六，非一品惑能障得果，猶如一間未越界故。應知總有二種家家：一天家家，謂欲天趣生三二家而證圓寂，或一天處或二或三。二人家家，謂於人趣生三二家而證圓寂，或一洲處或二或三。即預流者進斷欲界一品修惑乃至五品，應知轉名一來果向，若斷第六成一來果，彼往天上一來人間而般涅槃名一來果，過此以後更無生故。此或名曰薄貪瞋痴，唯餘下品貪瞋痴故。已辯一來向果差別，次應建立不還向果。頌曰：

The treatise says: A stream-enterer who advances in cutting off the delusions of cultivation, if three conditions are complete, is called a family-to-family one (kulamkula): first, by cutting off delusions, having cut off three or four grades of what is cut off by cultivation in the desire realm; second, by accomplishing faculties, having obtained the undefiled faculties that can remedy them; third, by taking birth, still taking two or three births in the desire realm. In the verse only the first and last conditions are mentioned, since after the stream-enterer's fruit it is said he advances in cutting off delusions and accomplishes the undefiled faculties that remedy them, which is established by implication, and so they are not all spoken of. But why should "two or three births" be said again? Because there is progress, and the births taken may be fewer, none, or more than this. Why is there no one who has cut off five grades? Because cutting off the fifth surely cuts off the sixth; a single grade of delusion cannot obstruct the obtaining of the fruit, just as one intervening life has not yet crossed the realm. One should know there are two kinds of family-to-family ones in all: first, the heavenly family-to-family one, who is born in two or three families in the desire heavens and attains perfect peace, in one heavenly place or two or three; second, the human family-to-family one, who is born in two or three families in the human destiny and attains perfect peace, in one continent or two or three. A stream-enterer who advances to cutting off one to five grades of the delusions of cultivation in the desire realm should be known as having turned to be one facing the fruit of once-returning; if he cuts off the sixth he becomes one in the fruit of once-returning, who goes up to the heavens and returns once to the human world and attains parinirvana, called the fruit of once-returning, since beyond this there is no more birth. This one is also sometimes called one with thin greed, hatred, and delusion, since only the lower grades of greed, hatred, and delusion remain. The differences between facing and fruit of once-returning have been explained; next we should establish facing and fruit of non-returning. The verse says:

斷七或八品，一生名一間，

Cutting off seven or eight grades, one birth, called one-interval (ekavicika),

此即第三向，斷九不還果。

This is the third facing; cutting off nine is the fruit of non-returning.

論曰：即一來者進斷餘惑，若三緣具轉名一間：一由斷惑，斷欲修斷七八品故。二由成根，得能治彼無漏根故。三由受生，更受欲有餘一生故。頌中但說初後二緣，不說成根，義如前釋。如何一品惑障得不還果？由彼若斷便越界故。前說三時業極為障，應知煩惱亦與業同，越彼等流異熟地故。間謂間隔，彼餘一生為間隔故，不證圓寂。或餘一品欲修所斷惑為間隔故，不得不還果。有一間者說名一間，即斷修惑七八品者，應知亦名不還果向。先斷三四七八品惑入見諦者，後得果時乃至未修後勝果道，仍不名曰家家一間，未成治彼無漏根故。若斷第九成不還果，必不還來生欲界故。此或名曰五下結斷，雖必先斷或二或三，然於此時總集斷故。依不還位，諸契經中以種種門建立差別，今次應辯彼差別相。頌曰：

The treatise says: A once-returner who advances in cutting off the other delusions, if three conditions are complete, is called one-interval: first, by cutting off delusions, having cut off seven or eight grades of what is cut off by cultivation in the desire realm; second, by accomplishing faculties, having obtained the undefiled faculties that can remedy them; third, by taking birth, taking only one more birth in the desire realm. In the verse only the first and last two conditions are spoken of, not the accomplishment of faculties, for the reason explained above. How does a single grade of delusion obstruct the obtaining of the fruit of non-returning? Because if it is cut off, one passes beyond the realm. It was said before that karma of the three times is an extreme obstruction; one should know that afflictions are the same as karma, since one passes beyond the realm of their outflowing and ripened results. "Interval" means separation; one is not attaining perfect peace because that one other birth acts as the interval. Or because one grade of the delusions cut off by cultivation in the desire realm acts as the interval, one does not obtain the fruit of non-returning. One who has one interval is called a one-interval person, that is, one who has cut off seven or eight grades of the delusions of cultivation; one should know he is also called one facing the fruit of non-returning. Those who earlier cut off three, four, seven, or eight grades of delusion and entered the seeing of the truths, when they later obtain the fruit, are still not called family-to-family or one-interval ones until they have cultivated the later path of the higher fruit, since they have not yet accomplished the undefiled faculties that remedy it. If one cuts off the ninth grade and becomes a non-returner, one certainly does not return to be born in the desire realm. This one is also sometimes called one who has cut off the five lower fetters; though two or three were certainly cut off earlier, at this time they are collectively cut off. Based on the stage of non-returning, the sutras establish distinctions through various gates; now we should explain the characteristics of those distinctions. The verse says:

此中生有行，無行般涅槃，

Among these: birth, effortful, effortless parinirvana,

上流若雜修，能往色究竟，

The upstream, if of mixed cultivation, can go to Akanistha,

超半超遍歿，餘能往有頂，

Leaping, half-leaping, and dying everywhere; the others can go to the peak of existence,

行無色有四，住此般涅槃。

Four going to the formless realm; abiding here, one attains parinirvana.

論曰：此不還者總說有七，且行色界差別有五：一中般涅槃、二生般涅槃、三有行般涅槃、四無行般涅槃、五者上流。此於中間般涅槃故，說此名曰中般涅槃。如是應知，此於生已，此由有行此由無行般涅槃故，名生般等。此上流故，名為上流。言中般者，謂往色界住中有位便般涅槃。言生般者，謂往色界生已不久便般涅槃，以具勤修速進道故。此中所說般涅槃者，謂有餘依。有餘師說：亦無餘依。此不應理，彼於捨壽無自在故。有行般者，謂往色界生已，長時加行不息，由多功用方般涅槃，此唯有勤修無速進道故。無行般者，謂往色界生已經久，加行懈息不多功用便般涅槃，以闕勤修速進道故。有說：此二有差別者，由緣有為無為聖道，如其次第得涅槃故。此說非理，太過失故。然契經中先說無行、後說有行般涅槃者，如是次第與理相應。有速進道、無速進道，無行有行而成辦故，不由功用得。由功用得故，生般涅槃得最速進最上品道，隨眠最劣故生不久便般涅槃。言上流者是上行義，以流與行其義一故。謂欲界歿往色界生，未即於中能證圓寂，要轉生上方般涅槃。即此上流差別有二，由因及果有差別故。因差別者，此於靜慮由有雜修無雜修故。果差別者，色究竟天及有頂天為極處故。謂若於靜慮有雜修者，能往色究竟方般涅槃。即此復有三種差別，全超、半超、遍歿異故。言全超者，謂在欲界於四靜慮已具雜修，遇緣退失上三靜慮，以初靜慮愛味為緣，命終上生梵眾天處。由於先世串習勢力，復能雜修第四靜慮，從彼處歿生色究竟，最初處歿生最後天，頓越中間是全超義。言半超者，從彼漸次生下淨居，乃至中間能越一處生色究竟，超非全故名為半超。聖必不生大梵天處，僻見處故、一導師故。言遍歿者，從彼漸次於一切處皆遍受生，最後方能生色究竟，一切處死故名遍歿。

The treatise says: These non-returners are in general said to be of seven kinds; first, those going to the form realm have five distinctions: first, one who attains parinirvana in the intermediate existence; second, one who attains parinirvana upon birth; third, one who attains parinirvana with effort; fourth, one who attains parinirvana without effort; fifth, the upstream one. Because one attains parinirvana in the middle, it is called parinirvana in the intermediate existence. One should know that, as one attains parinirvana after being born, by effort or without effort, one is called attaining parinirvana upon birth, and so on. Because one goes upstream, one is called upstream. "Parinirvana in the intermediate existence" means going to the form realm and attaining parinirvana at the stage of intermediate existence. "Parinirvana upon birth" means going to the form realm and soon after birth attaining parinirvana, because one is complete in diligent cultivation and the path of swift progress. The parinirvana spoken of here is that with remainder of support. Other masters say: there is also that without remainder. This is not reasonable, because that one has no mastery over giving up life. "Parinirvana with effort" means going to the form realm, and after birth, with long unceasing preparatory effort and much exertion, attaining parinirvana; this one has only diligent cultivation and lacks the path of swift progress. "Parinirvana without effort" means going to the form realm, and after a long time since birth, with preparatory effort relaxed and not much exertion, attaining parinirvana, because one lacks diligent cultivation and the path of swift progress. Some say: the difference between these two is that they attain nirvana, in order, by taking the conditioned or unconditioned noble path as object. This is not reasonable, since it would be an excess. However, the sutras first speak of parinirvana without effort and then with effort, and this order accords with reason. There is the path of swift progress and the path without swift progress, accomplished by effortless and effortful means, not obtained by exertion. Because it is obtained by exertion, one who attains parinirvana upon birth obtains the swiftest progress and the highest grade path, with latent tendencies the weakest, so soon after birth he attains parinirvana. "Upstream" means going up, since stream and going have one meaning. That is, one dies in the desire realm and goes to be born in the form realm, and is not able to realize perfect peace right there, but must be reborn higher and then attain parinirvana. This upstream one has two distinctions, because of differences in cause and result. The difference in cause is that, for the dhyanas, there are those with mixed cultivation and those without. The difference in result is that Akanistha heaven and the peak of existence are the extreme places. That is, if one has mixed cultivation in the dhyanas, one can go to Akanistha and attain parinirvana. This again has three distinctions, because of the differences of full leaping, half leaping, and dying everywhere. "Full leaping" means that in the desire realm one has already fully cultivated mixed practice of the four dhyanas, and meeting conditions loses the upper three dhyanas, and through attachment to the first dhyana, after death is reborn in the Brahma assembly heaven. By the force of habit from former lives, one can again mix cultivation of the fourth dhyana, dies there and is born in Akanistha; from the first place one dies and is born in the last heaven, leaping over the middle suddenly, which is the meaning of full leaping. "Half leaping" means that from there one gradually is born in the lower Pure Abodes, and in the middle can leap over one place to be born in Akanistha; since the leap is not complete, it is called half leaping. A noble one is certainly not born in the Great Brahma place, because it is a place of wrong views and has only one guide. "Dying everywhere" means that from there one gradually takes birth in all places, and only at last is born in Akanistha; since one dies in all places, it is called dying everywhere.

無不還者，於已生處受第二生，由彼於生容求勝進，非等劣故。即由此故不還義滿，必不還生曾生處故。尚不生本處，況有生於下。應知此謂二上流中由有雜修靜慮因故往色究竟般涅槃者，餘於靜慮無雜修者能往有頂方般涅槃，謂彼先無雜修靜慮，由於諸定愛味為緣，此歿遍生色界諸處，唯不能往五淨居天。色界命終於三無色次第生已，後生有頂方般涅槃。二上流中前是觀行、後是止行，樂慧樂定有差別故。二上流者於下地中得般涅槃見不違理，而言此往色究竟天及有頂天為極處者，由此過彼無行處故，如預流者極七返生。此五名為行色界者。行無色者差別有四，謂在欲界離色界貪，從此命終生於無色。此中差別唯有四種，由生般涅槃有差別故，此並前五成六不還。復有不行色無色界，即住於此能般涅槃，名現般涅槃，並前六為七。於行色界五不還中，復有異門顯其差別。頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) There is no non-returner who takes a second birth in a place already born in, because there one can seek to advance and not equal or lesser; by this reason the meaning of non-returning is fulfilled, since one is certainly not born again in a place where one has been born. One is not even born in one's original place, much less in a lower one. One should know that this refers to those among the two kinds of upstream ones who, because of the cause of mixed cultivation of the dhyanas, go to Akanistha and attain parinirvana; the others, without mixed cultivation of the dhyanas, can go to the peak of existence and attain parinirvana, namely those who have no earlier mixed cultivation of the dhyanas and who, with attachment to the various concentrations as condition, die and are born everywhere in the places of the form realm, only unable to go to the five Pure Abode heavens. When they die in the form realm, they are born in order in the three formless realms, and later are born in the peak of existence and attain parinirvana. Of the two upstream ones, the former is of contemplative practice and the latter of calming practice, because of differences of delight in wisdom and delight in concentration. Though it is seen that the two upstream ones may attain parinirvana in lower grounds without contradicting reason, it is said that Akanistha and the peak of existence are their extreme places because beyond these there is no place for effortless practice, like the stream-enterer's at most seven births. These five are called those going to the form realm. Those going to the formless realm have four distinctions, namely those who in the desire realm leave greed for the form realm, die from there and are born in the formless realm. Among these there are only four kinds, because of the differences in birth and parinirvana, and these together with the previous five make six non-returners. There is also one who goes to neither the form nor the formless realm and attains parinirvana right here, called one who attains parinirvana in the present, and together with the previous six this makes seven. Among the five non-returners going to the form realm, there are further different gates that show their distinctions. The verse says:

行色界有九，謂三各分三，

Those going to the form realm have nine, that is, three each divided into three,

業惑根有殊，故成三九別。

With differences of karma, delusion, and faculty, and so three or nine distinctions are established.

論曰：即行色界五種不還總立為三，各分三種故成九種。何等為三？中生上流有差別故。云何三種各分為三？且中般涅槃分為三種，速、非速、經久得般涅槃，由三火星喻所顯故。生般涅槃亦分三種，生有行等般涅槃故。此皆生已得般涅槃，是故並應名為生般。於上流中亦分三種，超、半超等有差別故。然諸三種一切皆由速、非速、經久得般涅槃故，更互相望無雜亂失。如是三種九種不還，由業惑根有差別故，有速、非速、經久不同，且總成三，由造增長順起生後業差別故。如其次第下中上品煩惱現行有差別故，及上中下根差別故，此三一一如其所應。亦業惑根有差別故，各有三別故成九種。謂初二三由惑根別各成三種，非由業異；後三亦由順後受業有差別故分成三種，故說如是行色不還業惑根殊成三九別。若爾，何故諸契經中，佛唯說有七善士趣？頌曰：

The treatise says: The five kinds of non-returners going to the form realm are in general established as three, each divided into three, and so become nine. What are the three? The distinctions of the intermediate, birth, and upstream ones. How is each of the three divided into three? First, the one who attains parinirvana in the intermediate existence is divided into three: swift, not swift, and after a long time attaining parinirvana, which is shown by the simile of the three sparks. One who attains parinirvana upon birth is also divided into three, by attaining parinirvana with effort, without effort, and so on. All of these attain parinirvana after birth, and so are all together called attaining parinirvana upon birth. The upstream one is also divided into three, with differences such as full leaping and half leaping. However, since all three kinds are by attaining parinirvana swiftly, not swiftly, or after a long time, there is no fault of mutual confusion. These three kinds and nine kinds of non-returners differ by karma, delusion, and faculty, and differ as swift, not swift, and long; first, they are generally three, because of differences in the karma done and grown that conduces to later birth. In order, they differ by whether lower, middle, or upper grade afflictions are active, and by upper, middle, or lower faculties; each of these three is as appropriate. Because karma, delusion, and faculty also differ, each has three distinctions, and so they become nine. That is, the first two sets of three are each divided into three by differences in delusion and faculty, not by differences in karma; the last three are also divided into three by differences in the karma that conduces to later experience; hence it is said that these non-returners going to the form realm are of three or nine distinctions by difference in karma, delusion, and faculty. If so, why does the Buddha in the sutras speak of only seven good persons' destinies? The verse says:

立七善士趣，由上流無別，

Seven destinies of the good person are established by the upstream one being undifferentiated,

善惡行不行，有往無還故。

Because of walking in good or evil conduct or not, and going without returning.

論曰：中、生各三，上流為一，經依此立七善士趣。有上流法故名上流，由此義同且立為一。何獨依此立善士趣，不依所餘有學聖者？趣是行義，所餘有學皆行善業無差別故。唯此七種皆行善業不行惡業，餘則不然。又唯七種行往上界不復還來，餘則不爾。故獨依此立善士趣。若爾，何故契經中言：云何善士？謂若成就有學正見，乃至廣說。諸餘有學若就異門，亦可說為有善士性，以諸有學於五種惡皆獲得畢竟不作律儀故，不善煩惱多已斷故。立善士趣不就異門，約唯行善不行惡故，唯託勝因往上界故。諸在聖位曾經生者，亦有此等差別相耶？不爾。云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The intermediate and birth ones are three each and the upstream one is one; the sutra establishes the seven destinies of the good person on this basis. One who has the dharma of upstream is called upstream, and because the meaning is the same they are established as one. Why are the destinies of the good person established only on this basis and not on the other learner noble ones? "Destiny" means conduct, and the other learners all practice good karma without distinction. Only these seven all practice good karma and not evil karma, while the others are not so. Also, only these seven go to the higher realms and do not return, while the others are not so. Hence the destinies of the good person are established only on this basis. If so, why does the sutra say: what is a good person? One who has accomplished the right view of a learner, and so on at length. Other learners, by another gate, could also be said to have the nature of a good person, because all learners have obtained the discipline of ultimately not doing the five evils, and because their unwholesome afflictions are mostly already cut off. The destinies of the good person are not established by another gate, but in terms of practicing only good and not evil, and in terms of going to the higher realms relying on a superior cause alone. Among those who in the noble stage have been born before, are there also such distinguishing characteristics? No. How so? The verse says:

經欲界生聖，不往餘界生，

A noble one who has been born in the desire realm does not go to be born in the other realms,

此及往上生，無練根並退。

This one and the one going up to be born have no refining of faculties and no regression.

論曰：若在聖位經欲界生，必不往生色無色界，由彼證得不還果已，定於現身般涅槃故。若於色界經生聖者，容有上生無色界義，如行色界極有頂者。然天帝釋作如是言：曾聞有天名色究竟，我後退落當生於彼。毘婆沙師作如是釋：彼由不了對法相故、為令喜故，佛亦不遮。即此已經欲界生者及已從此往上界生諸聖，必無練根並退。何緣不許經欲界生及上生聖者有練根並退？以必無故。何緣必無？經生習根極成熟故，及得殊勝所依止故。何緣有學未離欲貪無中有中般涅槃者？以彼聖道未淳熟故、未易能令現在前故、所有隨眠非極劣故。毘婆沙者作如是釋：諸欲界法極難越故、彼尚有餘多所作故，謂應進斷不善無記二煩惱故，及應進得若二若三沙門果故，並應總越三界法故，住中有位無如是能。前說上流雜修靜慮為因能往色究竟天，先應雜修何等靜慮？由何等位知雜修成？復為何緣雜修靜慮？頌曰：

The treatise says: If in the noble stage one has passed through birth in the desire realm, one certainly does not go to be born in the form or formless realm, since having obtained the fruit of non-returning, one will certainly attain parinirvana in this very body. If one has passed through birth in the form realm as a noble one, there may be the meaning of being born up in the formless realm, like those going to the form realm who reach the peak of existence. However, the god Indra said: I have heard there is a heaven called Akanistha, and after I regress I shall be born there. The Vaibhasika master explains: this is because he does not understand the characteristics of the Abhidharma, and to please him the Buddha also did not stop him. Those who have already passed through birth in the desire realm, and noble ones who have already gone from there to be born in the higher realms, certainly have no refining of faculties and no regression. Why is it not allowed that noble ones who have passed through birth in the desire realm or gone up to birth have refining of faculties and regression? Because certainly there is none. Why certainly none? Because the faculties practiced through births are extremely ripened, and because they have obtained a superior support. Why is it that learners who have not left desire do not attain parinirvana in the intermediate existence? Because their noble path is not yet fully ripened, because it cannot easily be made manifest, and because their latent tendencies are not extremely weak. The Vaibhasika masters explain thus: the dharmas of the desire realm are extremely hard to pass beyond, and they still have many other things to do, namely they must advance in cutting off the two afflictions, unwholesome and neutral, and must advance in obtaining two or three sramana fruits, and must collectively pass beyond the dharmas of the three realms; one who abides in the intermediate existence has no such ability. It was said earlier that the upstream one can go to Akanistha by the cause of mixed cultivation of the dhyanas; which dhyanas should be cultivated in mixture first? By what stage is it known that mixed cultivation is complete? And for what reason does one cultivate the dhyanas in mixture? The verse says:

先雜修第四，成由一念雜，

First mix the fourth, completed by mixing in one moment,

為受生現樂，及遮煩惱退。

For the sake of rebirth and present pleasure, and to prevent regression due to afflictions.

論曰：諸欲雜修四靜慮者，必先雜修第四靜慮，以彼等持最堪能故、諸樂行中彼最勝故。如是雜修諸靜慮者，是阿羅漢或是不還，彼必先入第四靜慮，多念無漏相續現前，從此引生多念有漏，後復多念無漏現前，如是旋還後後漸減，乃至最後二念無漏，次引二念有漏現前，無間復生二念無漏，名雜修定加行成滿。次後唯從一念無漏引起一念有漏現前，無間復生一念無漏，如是有漏中間剎那前後剎那無漏雜故，名雜修定根本圓成。前二剎那似無間道，第三剎那似解脫道。如是雜修第四定已，乘此勢力隨其所應，亦能雜修下三靜慮。先於欲界人趣三洲如是雜修諸靜慮已，後若退失生色界中，亦能如前雜修靜慮。雜修靜慮為三種緣：一為受生、二為現樂、三為遮止起煩惱退。謂不還中諸利根者，為現法樂及生淨居。諸鈍根者亦為遮退，彼畏退故。如是雜修令味相應等持遠故。諸阿羅漢，若利根者為現法樂，若鈍根者亦為遮防起煩惱退，雜修靜慮為生淨居。何緣淨居處唯有五？頌曰：

The treatise says: Those in the desire realm who mix cultivation of the four dhyanas must first mix the fourth dhyana, because that concentration is the most capable and is the best among the practices of pleasure. One who thus mixes cultivation of the dhyanas, whether an arhat or a non-returner, must first enter the fourth dhyana, with many moments of undefiled continuum appearing; from this he draws forth many moments of defiled mind, and then again many moments of undefiled mind appear; in this way he returns and turns gradually decreasing, up to the final two moments of undefiled mind, which then draw forth two moments of defiled mind, and immediately again two moments of undefiled mind arise; this is called the completion of the preparatory stage of mixed cultivation of concentration. Next, from just one moment of undefiled mind one draws forth one moment of defiled mind, and immediately again one moment of undefiled mind arises; since the defiled mind in the middle is mixed with undefiled moments before and after, this is called the complete accomplishment of the fundamental stage of mixed cultivation of concentration. The first two moments resemble the unobstructed path, and the third moment resembles the path of liberation. Having thus mixed cultivation of the fourth concentration, riding on this force, as appropriate, one can also mix cultivation of the lower three dhyanas. First, having thus mixed cultivation of the dhyanas in the three continents of the human destiny in the desire realm, if one later regresses and is born in the form realm, one can still mix cultivation of the dhyanas as before. Mixed cultivation of the dhyanas has three conditions: first, for rebirth; second, for present pleasure; third, to prevent regression through the arising of afflictions. Among non-returners, those of sharp faculties do it for pleasure in the present life and birth in the Pure Abodes. Those of dull faculties also do it to prevent regression, since they fear regression. Mixed cultivation thus keeps far from concentrations associated with attachment. As for arhats, those of sharp faculties do it for present pleasure, and those of dull faculties also to guard against regression through the arising of afflictions; mixed cultivation of the dhyanas is for birth in the Pure Abodes. Why are there only five Pure Abode places? The verse says:

由雜修五品，生有五淨居。

Because mixed cultivation has five grades, there are five Pure Abodes of birth.

論曰：由雜燻修第四靜慮有五品故，淨居唯五。何謂五品？謂下、中、上、上勝、上極品差別故。此中初品，三心現前便得成滿，謂初無漏，次起有漏，後起無漏。第二品六，第三品九，第四品十二，第五品十五。如是五品雜修靜慮，如其次第感五淨居。應知此中無漏勢力燻修有漏令感淨居。有餘師言：由信等五次第增上感五淨居。經說不還有名身證。依何勝德立身證名？頌曰：

The treatise says: Because mixed perfuming cultivation of the fourth dhyana has five grades, there are only five Pure Abodes. What are the five grades? The differences of lower, middle, upper, upper-superior, and upper-extreme grades. Of these, the first grade is completed when three moments of mind appear: first undefiled, next defiled, then undefiled. The second grade is six, the third nine, the fourth twelve, and the fifth fifteen. These five grades of mixed cultivation of the dhyanas bring about, in order, the five Pure Abodes. One should know that here the force of the undefiled perfumes and cultivates the defiled so as to bring about the Pure Abodes. Other masters say: the five are brought about by the successive increase of the five faculties such as faith. The sutra says there is a non-returner called the body-witness (kayasaksin). On the basis of what superior virtue is the name body-witness established? The verse says:

得滅定不還，轉名為身證。

A non-returner who has obtained the cessation concentration is renamed the body-witness.

論曰：有滅定得名得滅定，即不還者若於身中有滅定得轉名身證。謂不還者由身證得似涅槃法故名身證。如何說彼但名身證？以心無故、依身生故。理實應言，彼從滅定起，得先未得，有識身寂靜，便作是思：此滅盡定最為寂靜、極似涅槃。如是證得身之寂靜，故名身證。由得及智現前證得身寂靜故，契經說有十八有學。何緣於中不說身證？依因無故。何謂依因？謂諸無漏三學及果，依彼差別立有學故。滅定非學亦非學果，故不約成彼說有學差別。不還差別麁相如是，若細分析數成多千。其義云何？且如中般約根建立便成三種，下中上根有差別故。約地建立則成四種，往初定等有差別故。約種性建立則成六種，退法種性等有差別故。約處建立成十六種，梵眾天等處差別故。約地離染成三十六，色界具縛乃至已離第四靜慮八品染故。約處、種性、離染、根建立總成二千五百九十二。云何如是？且於一處種性有六，一一種性約離染門差別成九，謂隨何地具縛為初乃至已離八品為後，如是六九成五十四，以十六處乘五十四成八百六十四，以根乘之復成三倍故總成二千五百九十二。諸離下地九品染者，即說名為上地具縛，為成一一地離染數等故。如是乃至上流亦爾。總計五種，積數合成一萬二千九百六十。已辯第三向果差別，次應建立第四向果。頌曰：

The treatise says: One who has attained the cessation absorption is called one who has attained the cessation absorption; an Anagamin (non-returner) who has the cessation absorption in his body is further called a body-witness. That is, a non-returner is called a body-witness because he realizes with the body a dharma resembling nirvana. Why is he said to be called only a body-witness? Because the mind is absent in it and it arises in dependence on the body. In truth it should be said that when he rises from the cessation absorption, he gains what he had not gained before, the tranquility of the conscious body, and thinks: This cessation absorption is the most tranquil and most like nirvana. Having thus realized the tranquility of the body, he is called a body-witness. Because he has attained the tranquility of the body through attainment and through wisdom made present, the sutra speaks of eighteen kinds of learners. Why is the body-witness not mentioned among them? Because it is not based on a cause. What is meant by based on a cause? The learner categories are established according to the differences of the three trainings without outflows and their fruits. The cessation absorption is neither a training nor a fruit of training, so it is not counted in distinguishing learners. This is the rough picture of the varieties of the Anagamin; if analyzed in detail, they number many thousands. How so? For instance, the Antarabhava non-returner, established by faculty, becomes three kinds, because of differences of lower, middle and superior faculties. Established by realm, there are four kinds, because of differences such as those who go to the first absorption and so on. Established by lineage, there are six, because of differences such as the lineage that can fall back. Established by place, there are sixteen, because of differences in places such as the heaven of the Brahma assembly. Established by detachment from defilement in each realm, there are thirty-six, because the form realm is fully bound up to those who have already detached from eight grades of defilement of the fourth meditative absorption. Established by place, lineage, detachment and faculty, there are in all two thousand five hundred and ninety-two. How so? In one place there are six lineages, and each lineage differs into nine in terms of detachment, namely beginning with being fully bound in any realm up to having already detached from eight grades; six times nine makes fifty-four, and sixteen places multiplied by fifty-four makes eight hundred and sixty-four, and multiplying by the faculties adds a threefold factor, so the total is two thousand five hundred and ninety-two. Those who have already detached from nine grades of defilement of a lower realm are said to be fully bound in the higher realm, so as to make the number of detachments in each realm equal. The same applies up to the one who goes upstream. Altogether, for the five kinds, the accumulated number comes to twelve thousand nine hundred and sixty. The differences of the third direction and fruit have been explained; next the fourth direction and fruit should be established. The verse says:

上界修惑中，斷初定一品，

Among the afflictions to be removed by cultivation in the higher realms, cutting one grade of the first absorption,

至有頂八品，皆阿羅漢向。

up to the eight grades of the peak of existence, all are the direction toward arhatship.

第九無間道，名金剛喻定，

The ninth uninterrupted path is called the vajra-like absorption;

盡得俱盡智，成無學應果。

with the attainment of exhaustion and the knowledge of exhaustion together, one becomes a no-more-learning arhat, worthy of offerings.

論曰：即不還者進斷色界及無色界修所斷惑，從斷初定一品為初，至斷有頂八品為後，應知轉名阿羅漢向。即此所說阿羅漢向中，斷有頂惑第九無間道亦說名為金剛喻定，一切隨眠皆能破故、先已破故。不破一切實有，能破一切功能。諸能斷惑無間道中，此定相應最為勝故。金剛喻定說有多種，謂斷有頂第九品惑無間道生，通依九地故說此定智行緣別，未至地攝有五十二，謂苦集類智緣有頂苦集各有四行相應有八，滅道法智各有四行相應有八，滅類智緣八地滅一一各有四行相應合三十二，道類智緣八地道總有四行相應有四，以治八地類智品道同類相因必總緣故。如未至攝有五十二，中四靜慮應知亦爾。空處二十八，識處二十四，無所有處二十，以依無色無有法智及緣下滅滅類智故。然緣下地對治道者，以同品道互為因故。有說：此定智行緣別。未至地攝有八十種，謂道類智緣八地道亦各別有四行相應，由此於前增二十八。如未至攝有八十種，中四靜慮應知亦爾。空處四十，識處三十二，無所有處二十四。復有欲令金剛喻定智行緣別，未至地攝總有一百六十四種，謂滅類智緣八地滅有別有總各四行相應，由此於初增百一十二。如未至攝百六十四，中四靜慮應知亦然。空處五十二，識處三十六，無所有處二十四。若就種性根等分別，更成多種，如理應思。此定既能斷有頂地第九品惑，能引此惑盡得俱行盡智令起。金剛喻定是斷惑中最後無間道所生，盡智是斷惑中最後解脫道，由此解脫道與諸漏盡得最初俱生故名盡智。如是盡智至已生時便成無學阿羅漢果，已得無學應果法故。為得別果所應修學，此無有故，得無學名。即此唯應作他事故、諸有染者所應供故，依此義立阿羅漢名。義準已成。前來所辯四向三果皆名有學，何緣前七得有學名？為得漏盡，常樂學故。學要有三：一增上戒、二增上心、三增上慧。

The treatise says: The same non-returner advances to cut off the afflictions of the form and formless realms that are to be removed by cultivation, beginning with cutting one grade of the first absorption up to cutting eight grades of the peak of existence, and one should know that he is then called one heading toward arhatship. In this stage of heading toward arhatship, the ninth uninterrupted path that cuts off the afflictions of the peak of existence is also called the vajra-like absorption, because it can break all latent tendencies and has broken them in advance. It does not break all real existents but can break all their functions. Among the uninterrupted paths that can cut off afflictions, the one associated with this absorption is the most excellent. The vajra-like absorption is said to be of many kinds. Since the uninterrupted path that cuts off the ninth grade of afflictions of the peak of existence arises in dependence on nine realms, the knowledge, aspects and objects of this absorption differ. In the access stage there are fifty-two: the knowledge of suffering and origin of the later class, taking the peak of existence as object, has four aspects each for suffering and origin, making eight; the knowledge of cessation and path of the Dharma, four aspects each, makes eight; the knowledge of cessation of the later class, taking the cessation of eight realms as object, has four aspects for each, making thirty-two; and the knowledge of the path of the later class, taking the path of eight realms as object, has four aspects in all, making four, because the counteracting paths of the knowledge of the later class of the eight realms are of the same class and are causes of one another, and must take all together as object. As with the fifty-two of the access stage, the four meditative absorptions in the middle should be understood in the same way. In the sphere of infinite space there are twenty-eight, in the sphere of infinite consciousness twenty-four, and in the sphere of nothingness twenty, because in the formless realm there is no knowledge of the Dharma and there is knowledge of the later class that takes the cessations of lower realms as object. The path that takes lower realms as object is a counteracting path, because paths of the same class are causes of each other. Some say: The knowledge, aspects and objects of this absorption differ, and in the access stage there are eighty kinds, since the knowledge of the later class of the path, taking the paths of eight realms as object, also has four aspects each separately, and so twenty-eight are added to the above. As with the eighty of the access stage, the four meditative absorptions should be understood in the same way. In the sphere of infinite space there are forty, in the sphere of infinite consciousness thirty-two, and in the sphere of nothingness twenty-four. Others want the knowledge, aspects and objects of the vajra-like absorption to differ so that in the access stage there are altogether one hundred and sixty-four kinds, since the knowledge of the later class of cessation, taking the cessation of eight realms as object, has four aspects each both separately and in general, and thus a hundred and twelve are added to the first. As with the one hundred and sixty-four of the access stage, the four meditative absorptions in the middle should be understood in the same way. In the sphere of infinite space there are fifty-two, in the sphere of infinite consciousness thirty-six, and in the sphere of nothingness twenty-four. If one distinguishes by lineage, faculty and so on, there are still more kinds, which should be considered by reasoning. Since this absorption can cut off the ninth grade of afflictions of the peak of existence, it can bring forth the knowledge of exhaustion that accompanies the attainment of the exhaustion of these afflictions. The vajra-like absorption is the final uninterrupted path produced in cutting off afflictions, and the knowledge of exhaustion is the final path of liberation in cutting off afflictions; because this path of liberation arises together with the first attainment of the exhaustion of all outflows, it is called the knowledge of exhaustion. When this knowledge of exhaustion has arisen, one becomes a no-more-learning arhat, because one has obtained the dharmas of the no-more-learning and is worthy of offerings. One no longer has anything further to learn in order to attain another fruit, so one has the name no-more-learning. Because one should henceforth do the work of others and is worthy to be offered to by those who are defiled, the name arhat is established in this sense, and by implication it has been accomplished. The four directions and three fruits explained earlier are all called learner. Why do the first seven receive the name learner? Because in order to attain the exhaustion of outflows they always delight in learning. Learning has three requirements: higher moral discipline, higher mind, and higher wisdom.

以戒定慧為三自體。若爾，異生應名有學。不爾，未如實見知諦理故、彼容後時失正學故，由此善逝再說學言。如契經中佛告憺怕：學所應學、學所應學，我唯說此名有學者。為令了知學正所學無有退失名有學者故，薄伽梵重說學言。聖者住本性，如何名有學？學意未滿故。如行者暫息，或學法得常隨逐故。學法雲何？謂有學者無漏有為法。無學法雲何？謂無學者無漏有為法。云何涅槃不名為學？無學異生亦成就故。此復何緣不名無學？有學異生亦成就故。如是有學及無學者，總成八聖補特伽羅，行向住果各有四故。謂為證得預流果向乃至所證阿羅漢果，名雖有八事唯有五，謂住四果及初果向，以後三果向不離前果故。此依漸次得果者說。若倍離欲、全離欲者住見道中，名為一來、不還果向，非前果攝，如前所說修道二種，有漏、無漏有差別故。由何等道離何地染？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) The three, discipline, concentration and wisdom, are taken as its essence. If so, ordinary beings should also be called learners. Not so, because they have not yet seen and known the truths as they really are, and they may later lose right learning; for this reason the Sugata spoke again of learning. As the sutra says, the Buddha told Dan Pa (the name of a bhikshu): What is to be learned by learning, what is to be learned by learning, I say that only one who does this is called a learner. In order to make clear that one who learns right learning without falling back is called a learner, the Blessed One spoke the word learning again. When the holy are abiding in their own nature, why are they called learners? Because the intention to learn is not yet complete. It is like a journey that is only temporarily at rest, or because the dharmas of learning always follow them. What are the dharmas of learning? The conditioned dharmas without outflows of one who is learning. What are the dharmas of no-more-learning? The conditioned dharmas without outflows of one who is no-more-learning. Why is nirvana not called learning? Because ordinary beings of no-more-learning also possess it. Why is it not called no-more-learning? Because learners and ordinary beings also possess it. In this way those who are learners and those who are no-more-learning make up eight holy persons in all, since there are four of direction and four of abiding in the fruit. That is, from the direction toward the fruit of stream-entry up to the fruit of arhatship, the names are eight but the things are only five, namely abiding in the four fruits and the direction of the first fruit, because the last three directions are not separate from the preceding fruit. This is said of those who attain the fruits in sequence. Those who have doubly detached from desire or fully detached from desire and abide in the path of seeing are called those in the direction toward the fruit of once-returner or non-returner, and are not included in the preceding fruit, because, as said above, the two kinds of path of cultivation, with outflows and without outflows, differ. By which paths does one detach from the defilement of which realm? The verse says:

有頂由無漏，餘由二離染。

The peak of existence is detached from by the path without outflows; the others are detached from by both kinds.

論曰：唯無漏道離有頂染，非有漏道。所以者何？此上更無世俗道故、自地不能治自地故、自地煩惱所隨增故。若彼煩惱於此隨增，此必不能治彼煩惱。若此力能對治於彼，則彼於此必不隨增，故自地道不治自地。離餘八地通由二道，世出世道俱能離故。既通由二離八地染，各有幾種離繫得耶？頌曰：

The treatise says: Only the path without outflows detaches from the defilement of the peak of existence, not the path with outflows. Why? Because above this there is no worldly path, because a realm cannot counteract itself, and because the afflictions of its own realm increase in it. If those afflictions increase in this, this cannot counteract those afflictions. If its power could counteract them, they would not increase in it; therefore a path of one's own realm does not counteract that realm. Detaching from the other eight realms is possible through both kinds of path, because both worldly and supramundane paths can detach. Since detachment from the defilement of eight realms is through both paths, how many kinds of attainment of separation does each have? The verse says:

聖二離八修，各二離繫得。

The holy detach from eight by cultivation, each obtaining two kinds of attainment of separation.

論曰：諸有學聖用有漏道離下八地修斷染時，能具引生二離繫得。用無漏道離彼亦然，由二種道同所作故。有餘師釋：以無漏道離彼染時，何緣證知亦生有漏離繫得者，有捨無漏得，煩惱不成故。謂有學聖以無漏道離彼染時，若不引生同治有漏離繫得者，則以聖道具離八地，後依靜慮得轉根時，頓捨先來諸鈍聖道，唯得靜慮利果聖道，上惑離繫應皆不成，是則還應成彼煩惱。此證非理。所以者何？彼聖設無有漏斷得，亦不成就上地煩惱。如分離有頂得轉根時及異生上生不成惑故。謂如分離有頂地染，後依靜慮得轉根時，無漏斷得既已頓捨，彼地離繫無有漏得，而彼地惑亦不成就。又如異生生二定等，雖捨欲界等煩惱斷得，而不成就欲界等煩惱，此亦應然。故不成證。既說聖者二離八修各能引生二離繫得，義準異生用有漏道唯能引起有漏斷得，並諸聖者用無漏道離見斷惑及有頂修唯能引生無漏斷得。由何地道離何地染？頌曰：

The treatise says: When holy learners use a path with outflows to detach from the defilements to be cut by cultivation in the eight lower realms, they can bring forth both kinds of attainment of separation. When they detach with the path without outflows, it is the same, because the two kinds of path do the same work. Some other masters explain: When one detaches from those defilements with the path without outflows, how do we know that one also produces the attainment of separation with outflows? If one abandons the attainment without outflows, the afflictions would not be fully eliminated. That is, if a holy learner who detaches from those defilements with a supramundane path does not also bring forth an attainment of separation with outflows that counteracts them in the same way, then having fully detached from the eight realms by the holy path and later, when changing faculty in reliance on a meditative absorption, abruptly abandoning the previously dull holy path and gaining only the sharp fruit path of meditative absorption, the attainment of separation from the higher afflictions would all be lost, and those afflictions would be possessed again. This proof is not reasonable. Why? Even if the holy person has no cutting attainment with outflows, he does not possess the afflictions of the higher realm. Just as when one has partially detached from the peak of existence and later changes faculty in reliance on meditative absorption, the cutting attainment without outflows is abruptly abandoned and there is no attainment of separation with outflows for that realm, yet the afflictions of that realm are not possessed. Also, when an ordinary being is born in two meditative absorptions and so on, although he abandons the cutting attainment of the desire-realm afflictions, he does not possess the afflictions of the desire realm, and the same applies here. So this is not a proof. Since it has been said that holy persons obtain two kinds of attainment of separation from detaching the eight by cultivation, it follows that ordinary beings using a path with outflows can only bring forth the cutting attainment with outflows, and holy persons detaching from afflictions to be cut by seeing and from the peak of existence by cultivation using the path without outflows can only bring forth the cutting attainment without outflows. By the path of which realm does one detach from the defilement of which realm? The verse says:

無漏未至道，能離一切地，

The path without outflows of the access stage can detach from all realms,

餘八離自上，有漏離次下。

the other eight detach from their own and higher ones, and the path with outflows detaches from the next lower realm.

論曰：諸無漏道若未至攝，能離欲界乃至有頂。靜慮中間及四靜慮三無色攝，隨其所應各能離自及上地染。不離下，已離故。諸有漏道一切唯能離次下地，非自地等，自地煩惱所隨增故、勢劣故、已離故。諸依近分離下地染。如無間道皆近分攝，諸解脫道亦近分耶？不爾。云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: If the paths without outflows belong to the access stage, they can detach from the desire realm up to the peak of existence. Those belonging to the intermediate absorption, the four meditative absorptions and the three formless realms, according to what is appropriate, can each detach from the defilement of their own and higher realms. They do not detach from lower ones, because those are already detached. All paths with outflows can only detach from the next lower realm, not their own realm and so on, because the afflictions of their own realm increase in it, because their power is weak, and because it is already detached. All who detach from lower defilements in reliance on the near-access stage: as all uninterrupted paths belong to the near-access stage, do all paths of liberation also? Not so. How is it? The verse says:

近分離下染，初三後解脫，

Detachment from lower defilement by the near-access stage: the first three belong to the paths of liberation,

根本或近分，上地唯根本。

to the root or the near-access stage, and the higher realms only to the root.

論曰：諸道所依近分有八，謂四靜慮、無色下邊。所離有九，謂欲、八定。初三近分離下三染，第九解脫現在前時，或入根本或即近分。上五近分各離下染，第九解脫現在前時，必入根本非即近分，近分根本等捨根故、下三靜慮近分根本受根異故。有不能入，轉入異受少艱難故、離下染時必欣上故。若受無異，必入根本。諸出世道無間解脫前既已說，緣四諦境十六行相義準自成。世道緣何作何行相？頌曰：

The treatise says: The near-access stages that the paths rely on are eight, namely the four meditative absorptions and the lower boundary of the formless realms. What is detached from is nine: the desire realm and the eight absorptions. The first three near-access stages detach from the defilements of the lower three; when the ninth path of liberation becomes manifest, one either enters the root absorption or remains in the near-access stage. The upper five near-access stages each detach from lower defilements, and when the ninth path of liberation becomes manifest, one certainly enters the root absorption and not the near-access stage, because the near-access stage and the root absorption have the same faculty of equanimity, while the near-access stage and root absorption of the lower three meditative absorptions have different feeling faculties. Some cannot enter; moving into a different feeling is slightly difficult, and when detaching from lower defilement one must be eager for the higher. If the feeling has no difference, one must enter the root absorption. The uninterrupted paths and paths of liberation of the supramundane paths have already been discussed, and their objects of the four truths and sixteen aspects are accomplished by implication. What does the worldly path take as object and what aspects does it make? The verse says:

世無間解脫，如次緣下上，

The worldly uninterrupted path and liberation path take in order the lower and the higher,

作麁苦障行，及靜妙離三。

making the aspects of coarse, suffering and obstruction, and of calm, excellent and escape.

論曰：世俗無間及解脫道，如次能緣下地上地，為麁苦障及靜妙離。謂諸無間道緣自次下地諸有漏法，作麁苦等三行相中隨一行相。若諸解脫道緣彼次上地諸有漏法，作靜妙等三行相中隨一行相。非寂靜故說名為麁，由大劬勞方能越故、非美妙故。說名為苦，由多麁重能違害故、非出離故。說名為障，由此能礙越自地故，如獄厚壁能障出離。靜妙離三翻此應釋。傍論已了，應辯本義。盡智無間有何智生？頌曰：

The treatise says: The worldly uninterrupted path and the path of liberation can take in order the lower realm and the higher realm as object, as coarse, suffering and obstruction, and as calm, excellent and escape. That is, the uninterrupted paths take the conditioned dharmas with outflows of their own next lower realm as object and make any one of the three aspects, coarse, suffering and obstruction. The paths of liberation take the conditioned dharmas with outflows of the next higher realm as object and make any one of the three aspects, calm, excellent and escape. It is called coarse because it is not calm, since one can pass beyond it only with great effort; it is called suffering because it is not beautiful and excellent, since many heavy burdens harm one; it is called obstruction because it is not an escape, since it hinders one from passing beyond one's own realm, like the thick walls of a prison that block escape. Calm, excellent and escape should be explained as the contrary. The digression is complete; we should return to the main subject. What knowledge arises immediately after the knowledge of exhaustion? The verse says:

不動盡智後，必起無生智，

After the knowledge of exhaustion of the unshakable, the knowledge of non-arising must arise;

餘盡或正見，此應果皆有。

in others, exhaustion or right view arises; all of these are worthy ones.

論曰：不動種性諸阿羅漢，盡智無間起無生智，非更有盡智無學正見生。除不動法餘阿羅漢，盡智無間有盡智生，或即引生無學正見非無生智，後容退故。前不動種性無正見生耶？有正見生，而不說者，一切應果皆有此故。謂不動法無生智後有無生智起，或無學正見。前說四果是誰果耶？此四應知是沙門果。何謂沙門性？此果體是何？果位差別總有幾種？頌曰：

The treatise says: For arhats of the unshakable lineage, the knowledge of non-arising arises immediately after the knowledge of exhaustion, and there is no further knowledge of exhaustion nor right view of no-more-learning arising. Arhats other than those of the unshakable nature have the knowledge of exhaustion arising immediately after the knowledge of exhaustion, or the right view of no-more-learning is brought forth, not the knowledge of non-arising, because they may later fall back. Is there no right view arising in the earlier unshakable lineage? Right view arises, but it is not mentioned, because all arhats have it. After the unshakable nature there arises the knowledge of non-arising, or right view of no-more-learning. Whose fruits are the four fruits spoken of earlier? One should know that these four are fruits of a shramana. What is meant by the nature of a shramana? What is the essence of these fruits? How many varieties of fruit stages are there in all? The verse says:

淨道沙門性，有為無為果，

The nature of a shramana is the pure path; the fruits are conditioned and unconditioned,

此有八十九，解脫道及滅。

which number eighty-nine: the paths of liberation and cessation.

論曰：諸無漏道是沙門性，懷此道者名曰沙門，以能勤勞息煩惱故。如契經說：以能勤勞息除種種惡不善法，廣說乃至故名沙門。異生不能無異究竟趣涅槃故，非真沙門。有為無為是沙門果。契經說此差別有四，理實就位有八十九，皆解脫道擇滅為性。謂為永斷見所斷惑有八無間八解脫道，及為永斷修所斷惑有八十一無間八十一解脫道。諸無間道唯沙門性，諸解脫道亦是沙門有為果體，是彼等流、士用果故。一一擇滅唯是沙門無為果體，是彼離繫、士用果故。如是合成八十九種。若爾，世尊何不具說？果雖有多而不說者，頌曰：

The treatise says: All paths without outflows are the nature of a shramana, and one who embraces this path is called a shramana, because he can exert effort to extinguish afflictions. As the sutra says: Because one can exert effort to stop and remove various evil and unwholesome dharmas, and so on at length, one is called a shramana. Ordinary beings are not true shramanas, because they do not go ultimately toward nirvana without difference. The conditioned and unconditioned are the fruits of a shramana. The sutra speaks of four distinctions in this, but in truth, in terms of stages, there are eighty-nine, all with the path of liberation and cessation through discernment as their nature. That is, to cut off forever the afflictions to be removed by seeing there are eight uninterrupted paths and eight paths of liberation, and to cut off forever the afflictions to be removed by cultivation there are eighty-one uninterrupted paths and eighty-one paths of liberation. The uninterrupted paths are simply the nature of a shramana, and the paths of liberation are also the conditioned fruit essence of a shramana, since they are the outflowing fruit and the fruit of human effort of those paths. Each cessation through discernment is simply the unconditioned fruit essence of a shramana, since it is the fruit of separation and the fruit of human effort of those paths. Altogether these make eighty-nine kinds. If so, why did the World-Honored One not state them all? Although there are many fruits, they are not all stated; the verse says:

五因立四果，捨曾得勝道，

Four fruits are established on five causes: abandoning the path previously attained, gaining a superior path,

集斷得八智，頓修十六行。

the cutting off by collection, gaining eight knowledges, and cultivating sixteen aspects at once.

論曰：若斷道位具足五因，佛於經中建立為果。言五因者，一捨曾道，謂捨先得果向道故。二得勝道，謂得果攝殊勝道故。三總集斷，謂總一得得諸斷故。四得八智，謂得四法四類智故。五能頓修十六行相，謂能頓修無常等故。於四果位皆具五因，餘位不然，故佛不說。若唯淨道是沙門性，有漏道力所得二果，如何亦是沙門果攝？頌曰：

The treatise says: If the stage of the path of cutting off possesses five causes, the Buddha in the sutra establishes it as a fruit. The five causes are: first, abandoning the previous path, namely abandoning the path of the previously attained fruit and direction; second, gaining a superior path, namely gaining the superior path included in the fruit; third, the cutting off by collection, namely obtaining all the cuttings together in one attainment; fourth, gaining eight knowledges, namely gaining the four knowledges of the Dharma and four of the later class; fifth, the ability to cultivate sixteen aspects at once, namely being able to cultivate impermanence and the rest together. In the stages of the four fruits all five causes are present, while in other stages it is not so, therefore the Buddha did not speak of them. If only the pure path is the nature of a shramana, how are the two fruits obtained by the power of a path with outflows also included among the fruits of a shramana? The verse says:

世道所得斷，聖所得雜故，

The cutting obtained by a worldly path is mixed with what the holy obtain,

無漏得持故，亦名沙門果。

and is upheld by the attainment without outflows, so it too is called a fruit of a shramana.

論曰：以世俗道得二果時，此果非唯以世俗道所得擇滅為斷果性，兼以見道所得擇滅於中相雜總成一果，同一果道得所得故。由此契經言：云何一來果？謂斷三結薄貪瞋痴。云何不還果？謂斷五下結。又世俗道所得擇滅，無漏斷得所任持故，由此力所持退不命終故，亦得名為沙門果體。此沙門性有異名耶？亦有。云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: When the two fruits are obtained by a worldly path, this fruit is not only the cessation through discernment obtained by the worldly path as the nature of the fruit of cutting; it is also mixed with the cessation through discernment obtained by the path of seeing, together forming one fruit, since the fruit path obtains what is obtained together. For this reason the sutra says: What is the fruit of once-return? The cutting off of the three fetters and the weakening of greed, hatred and delusion. What is the fruit of non-return? The cutting off of the five lower fetters. Also, the cessation through discernment obtained by a worldly path is upheld by the attainment of cutting without outflows, and by the power so upheld one does not fall back and does not die in that state, so it too can be called the essence of a fruit of a shramana. Does this nature of a shramana have other names? It does. How? The verse says:

所說沙門性，亦名婆羅門，

The nature of a shramana described is also called Brahmin,

亦名為梵輪，真梵所轉故。

and also called the Brahma wheel, because it is turned by the true Brahma.

於中唯見道，說名為法輪，

Of these, only the path of seeing is called the wheel of the Dharma,

由速等似輪，或具輻等故。

because it is swift and resembles a wheel, or because it has spokes and so on.

論曰：即前所說真沙門性，經亦說名婆羅門性，以能遣除諸煩惱故。即此亦說名為梵輪，是真梵王力所轉故。佛與無上梵德相應，是故世尊獨應名梵。由契經說佛亦名梵、亦名寂靜、亦名清涼。即於此中唯依見道，世尊有處說名法輪。如世間輪有速等相，見道似彼故名法輪。見道如何與彼相似？由速行等似彼輪故。謂見諦道速疾行故、有捨取故、降未伏故、鎮已伏故、上下轉故，具此五相似世間輪。尊者妙音作如是說：如世間輪有輻等相，八支聖道似彼名輪。謂正見、正思惟、正勤、正念似世輪輻，正語、正業、正命似轂，正定似輞，故名法輪。寧知法輪唯是見道？憍陳那等見道生時，說名已轉正法輪故。云何三轉十二行相？此苦聖諦，此應遍知，此已遍知，是名三轉。即於如是一一轉時，別別發生眼智明覺，說此名曰十二行相。如是三轉十二行相諦諦皆有，然數等故但說三轉十二行相，如說二法七處善等。由此三轉如次顯示見道、修道、無學道三。毘婆沙師所說如是。若爾，三轉十二行相非唯見道，如何可說唯於見道立法輪名？是故唯應即此三轉十二行相所有法門名為法輪，可應正理。如何三轉？三週轉故。如何具足十二行相？三週循歷四聖諦故。謂此是苦、此是集、此是滅、此是道，此應遍知、此應永斷、此應作證、此應修習，此已遍知、此已永斷、此已作證、此已修習。云何名轉？由此法門往他相續令解義故。或諸聖道皆是法輪，於所化生身中轉故。於他相續見道生時，已至轉初故名已轉。何沙門果依何界得？頌曰：

The treatise says: The same true nature of a shramana is also called the nature of a Brahmin in the sutras, because it can drive away all afflictions. It is also called the Brahma wheel, because it is turned by the power of the true Brahma king. The Buddha is endowed with the supreme Brahma virtue, so the World-Honored One alone deserves to be called Brahma. For the sutra says the Buddha is also called Brahma, also called tranquil, and also called cool. Among these, only the path of seeing is called the wheel of the Dharma in some places by the World-Honored One. Just as worldly wheels have swiftness and other characteristics, the path of seeing resembles them and so is called the wheel of the Dharma. How does the path of seeing resemble them? It resembles that wheel in swiftness and so on: the path of seeing the truths moves swiftly, has abandoning and taking, subdues what is not yet subdued, holds firm what has been subdued, and turns up and down; having these five aspects it resembles a worldly wheel. The Venerable Miaoyin said: Just as a worldly wheel has spokes and so on, the eightfold noble path resembles it and is called a wheel: right view, right thought, right effort and right mindfulness resemble the spokes of a worldly wheel, right speech, right action and right livelihood resemble the hub, and right concentration resembles the rim, so it is called the wheel of the Dharma. How do we know that the wheel of the Dharma is only the path of seeing? Because when Kaundinya (one of the five bhikshus) and others had the path of seeing arise, it is said that the wheel of the true Dharma had been turned. How are there three turnings and twelve aspects? This is the noble truth of suffering, this should be fully known, this has been fully known; these are called three turnings. At each such turning, the eye, knowledge, understanding and awakening arise separately, and this is called the twelve aspects. The three turnings and twelve aspects apply to every truth, but they are mentioned only as three turnings and twelve aspects by way of the numbers, as when speaking of two dharmas or the seven places of the good. Thus the three turnings show in order the three paths of seeing, cultivation and no-more-learning. This is what the Vibhasa masters say. If so, the three turnings and twelve aspects are not only the path of seeing, so how can the name wheel of the Dharma be established only for the path of seeing? Therefore it is correct in principle to say that only the teaching of these three turnings and twelve aspects is called the wheel of the Dharma. How are there three turnings? Because it turns around three times. How are the twelve aspects complete? Because it goes around the four noble truths three times: this is suffering, this is origin, this is cessation, this is the path; this should be fully known, this should be forever cut off, this should be realized, this should be cultivated; this has been fully known, this has been forever cut off, this has been realized, this has been cultivated. Why is it called a turning? Because this teaching goes into the continuum of others and makes them understand its meaning. Or because all holy paths are wheels of the Dharma, they turn in the bodies of those to be taught. When the path of seeing arises in the continuum of another, it has reached the beginning of the turning, so it is called already turned. In which realms are the fruits of a shramana attained? The verse says:

三依欲後三，由上無見道，

The first three depend on the desire realm, the last three on the three realms; in the higher realms there is no path of seeing,

無聞無緣下，無厭及經故。

no hearing, no taking the lower as object, no aversion, and also because of the sutras.

論曰：前三但依欲界身得，得阿羅漢依三界身。前之二果未離欲故，非依上得理且可然，第三云何非依上得？由理教故。且理云何？依上界身無見道故，非離見道已離欲者可有超證不還果義。何緣上界必無見道？且無色中無正聞故。又彼界中不緣下故，色界異生著勝定樂。又無苦受不生厭故，非無有厭能得見道。教復云何？由經說故。經言：有五補特伽羅，此處通達彼處究竟，所謂中般乃至上流。此通達言唯目見道，是證圓寂初加行故。由此見道上界定無。

The treatise says: The first three are attained only in the body of the desire realm, and arhatship is attained in the bodies of the three realms. The first two fruits are not attained in the higher realms because one has not yet detached from desire, which is plausible enough in principle; but why is the third not attained in the higher realms? By reasoning and by teaching. What is the reasoning? Because there is no path of seeing in the bodies of the higher realms, and one who has already detached from desire without a path of seeing cannot realize the fruit of non-return by leaping over. Why is there certainly no path of seeing in the higher realms? First, because in the formless realm there is no right hearing. Also, in those realms the lower is not taken as object, and ordinary beings of the form realm are attached to the pleasure of excellent absorptions. Also, because there is no painful feeling, no aversion arises, and without aversion one cannot obtain the path of seeing. What is the teaching? It is the sutra's statement. The sutra says: There are five kinds of persons who penetrate here and reach the end there, namely the Antarabhava non-returner up to the one who goes upstream. The word penetrate refers only to the path of seeing, since it is the first preparatory practice for realizing perfect peace. For this reason the path of seeing certainly does not exist in the higher realms.

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by the Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under imperial order

分別賢聖品第六之四

Chapter Six on the Analysis of the Worthy and Holy, Part Four

如前所說，不動應果初盡智後起無生智。諸阿羅漢如預流等有差別不？亦有。云何？頌曰：

As said before, for the unshakable arhat the knowledge of non-arising arises after the first knowledge of exhaustion. Do arhats also have differences, as stream-enterers and others do? They do. How? The verse says:

阿羅漢有六，謂退至不動，

There are six kinds of arhats, from the one who can fall back to the unshakable;

前五信解生，總名時解脫，

the first five arise from faith-liberation and are all called temporarily liberated,

後不時解脫，從前見至生。

the last is liberated at any time, arising from seeing attained in the learner stage.

論曰：於契經中說阿羅漢由種性異故有六種，一者退法、二者思法、三者護法、四安住法、五堪達法、六不動法。於此六中前之五種，從先學位信解性生，即此總名時愛心解脫，恆時愛護及心解脫故。亦說名為時解脫者，以要待時及解脫故。略初言故，如言酥瓶。由此待時方能入定，謂待資具無病處等勝緣合時方入定故。不動法性說名為後，即此名為不動心解脫，以無退動及心解脫故。亦說名為不時解脫，以不待時及解脫故。謂三摩地隨欲現前，不待勝緣和合時故。或依暫時、畢竟解脫，建立時解脫、不時解脫名，容有退墮時、無退墮時故，此從學位見至性生。如是所明六阿羅漢所有種性，為是先有、為後方得？不定。云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: In the sutras it is said that arhats are of six kinds because of differences of lineage: first, those who can fall back; second, those who think of ending their lives; third, those who protect against falling; fourth, those who abide steadily; fifth, those capable of reaching the unshakable; sixth, the unshakable. Among these six, the first five arise from the nature of faith-liberation in the earlier learner stage, and all are called liberated of mind in time through love, because they constantly love and guard it and have liberation of mind. They are also called temporarily liberated, because they must wait for the right time and have liberation. The word first is omitted, as in saying a jar of ghee. Because of this they must wait for the right time before they can enter absorption, namely entering absorption only when excellent conditions such as requisites and a place free of illness are all present. The unshakable nature is said to be the last, and it is called the unshakable liberation of mind, because it has no falling back or moving and has liberation of mind. It is also called liberation at any time, because it does not wait for a time and has liberation. That is, samadhi becomes present at will, without waiting for excellent conditions to come together. Or, in terms of temporary and ultimate liberation, the names liberation in time and liberation not in time are established, since there may be a time of falling back and a time of no falling back; this arises from the nature of seeing attained in the learner stage. Are the lineages of these six kinds of arhats thus explained already present beforehand, or obtained afterward? It is not fixed. How? The verse says:

有是先種性，有後練根得。

Some are the lineage from before, and some are obtained later by refining the faculties.

論曰：退法種性必是先有，思法等五亦有後得。謂有先來是思法性，有先退法性後練根成思，乃至不動隨應當說。言退法者，謂遇少緣便退所得，非思法等。言思法者，謂懼退失恆思自害。言護法者，謂於所得喜自防護。安住法者，離勝退緣雖不自防亦能不退，離勝加行亦不增進。堪達法者，彼性堪能好修練根速達不動。不動法者，彼必無退。此六種性，先學位中初二闕恆時及尊重加行，由根有異故有差別。第三唯有恆時加行，第四唯有尊重加行，第五具二而是鈍根，第六利根具二加行。退法種性非必定退，乃至堪達非必能達，但約容有建立此名，故六阿羅漢通三界皆有。若執退者必定應退，乃至堪達必能達者，彼執欲界具足有六，色無色界中唯安住、不動，彼無退失、自害、自防及修練根故唯有二。如是六種阿羅漢中，誰從何退？為性為果？頌曰：

The treatise says: The lineage that can fall back is certainly present from before, while the five of the thinking-of-ending-life kind and the rest may also be obtained later. That is, some are of the thinking nature from before, and some, being first of the falling-back nature, later refine their faculties and become of the thinking nature, and so on up to the unshakable, as should be explained accordingly. The one who can fall back is one who falls back from what he has attained upon meeting even slight conditions, unlike the thinking kind and the rest. The thinking kind is one who fears falling back and constantly thinks of harming himself. The protecting kind is one who is glad of what he has attained and guards it himself. The steadily abiding kind, apart from conditions of excellent falling back, does not fall back even without guarding himself, and apart from excellent effort does not progress. The kind capable of reaching is by nature able to refine his faculties well and quickly reach the unshakable. The unshakable kind certainly has no falling back. Of these six lineages, in the earlier learner stage the first two lack constancy and respectful effort, and they differ because of differences in faculty. The third has only constant effort, the fourth has only respectful effort, the fifth has both but is of dull faculty, and the sixth is of sharp faculty with both efforts. The lineage that can fall back does not necessarily fall back, and up to the kind capable of reaching does not necessarily reach; these names are established merely according to what is possible, so the six kinds of arhat are found in all three realms. If one holds that one who can fall back must fall back, and up to the one capable of reaching must reach, then in the desire realm all six are fully present, while in the form and formless realms there are only the steadily abiding and the unshakable, since there they have no falling back, harming themselves, guarding themselves or refining faculties, so there are only two. Among these six kinds of arhat, who falls back from what? Is it from a nature or from a fruit? The verse says:

四從種性退，五從果非先。

Four fall back from lineage, five from fruit, but not from what was first.

論曰：不動種性必無退理。前之五種皆有退義，於中後四有從性退，退法一種無退性理，由此種性最居下故。五種皆有從果退義，雖俱有退然並非先。謂諸無學先學位中所住種性，彼從此性必無退理，學無學道所成堅故。若諸有學先凡位中所住種性，彼從此性亦無退理，世出世道所成堅故。若住此位後修練根所得思等四種種性，彼從此性容有退理。二先位中住思等性，必亦無退此所得果，唯先退法有退果義。又亦無退先所得果，後所得果容有退義，是故定無退預流果。由此應果退法有三：一增進根、二退住學、三住自位而般涅槃。思法有四，三如前說，更加一種退住退性。餘三如次有五六七，應知後後一一增故。思法等四退住學位，時還住退非餘。若異此者，得勝種性故，應是進非退。何緣定無退先果者？以見所斷依無事故。謂有身見依我處轉，見所斷惑此見為根，我體既無名依無事，以無事故必無退理。若爾，應說此惑緣無，非此緣無，諦為境故。然於諦境不如實緣，諸煩惱中誰不如是？雖皆如是而有差別，以修斷惑各有別事，即是可意不可意等，於所緣境此相非無。見所斷惑計有我等，非諸諦境有我等相，以無事故與修斷別。謂於色等所緣境中，我見妄增作者受者自在而轉，非實我性。邊執見等隨此而生，故並說為依無事惑。若修所斷貪瞋慢痴，色等境中唯起染著增背高舉不了行轉，故並說為依有事惑。又見斷惑於諦理中執我我所斷常見等，非諦中有少我等事。見斷貪等緣此而生，是故皆名依無事惑。修所斷惑於色等中謂好醜等，然色等境非無少分好醜等別，是故可名依有事惑。又見斷惑迷諦理起名依無事，修所斷惑迷麁事生名依有事。諦理真實，揩定可依。聖慧已證必無退理，事相浮偽無定可依，斷迷彼惑有失念退。或修斷惑非審慮生，昧鈍性故。見所斷惑由審慮生，推度性故。

The treatise says: The unshakable lineage certainly has no principle of falling back. The first five all have the sense of falling back; among them, the last four may fall back from their nature, but the one who can fall back has no principle of falling back from his nature, since this lineage is the lowest. All five can fall back from the fruit; although all can fall back, it is nevertheless not from what was first. That is, those who are no-more-learning certainly do not fall back from the lineage they abode in during the earlier learner stage, because it was made firm by the paths of learning and no-more-learning. If learners abode in a lineage during the earlier ordinary stage, they also do not fall back from that lineage, because it was made firm by worldly and supramundane paths. If one abides in this stage and later refines the faculties and obtains the four lineages of thinking and the rest, one may fall back from that lineage. The two kinds that abode in the thinking nature and so on in the earlier stage certainly also do not fall back from the fruit then obtained; only the earlier one who can fall back has the sense of falling back from the fruit. Also, one does not fall back from a fruit obtained earlier, though one may fall back from a fruit obtained later, so there is certainly no falling back from the fruit of stream-entry. Because of this, the arhat who can fall back has three cases: first, advancing the faculty; second, falling back and abiding in learning; third, abiding in his own stage and attaining parinirvana. The thinking kind has four, three as said above plus one more, falling back and abiding in the nature of falling back. The other three are respectively five, six and seven; one should know that each adds one later. Those of the thinking kind and the rest who fall back into the stage of learning remain there for a time and then fall back, not otherwise. If it were otherwise, since they obtain an excellent lineage, it would be advancing and not falling back. Why is there certainly no falling back from a fruit attained earlier? Because what is to be cut off by seeing depends on a non-thing. That is, the view of a real self in the body operates in dependence on the self, and the afflictions to be cut by seeing have this view as their root; since the essence of a self does not exist, they are said to depend on a non-thing, and because they depend on a non-thing they certainly cannot fall back. If so, one should say that these afflictions take what does not exist as object, but they do not, since the truths are their objects. But they do not take the object of the truths as it really is; which afflictions are not like this? Although all are, there are differences, because afflictions to be cut by cultivation each have a distinct thing, namely the agreeable and the disagreeable and so on, and with respect to the object this characteristic is not absent. Afflictions to be cut by seeing take a self and the like, and the objects of the truths have no characteristic of a self and the like, so being non-things they differ from those cut by cultivation. In objects such as form, the view of self falsely increases an agent, an experiencer and one who is free to act, which is not a real self. Views of extremes and the like arise following this, so they are all said to be afflictions depending on a non-thing. As for greed, hatred, pride and delusion cut by cultivation, in objects such as form they only give rise to defiled attachment, aversion, elation and non-understanding, so they are all said to be afflictions depending on a thing. Moreover, afflictions cut by seeing hold in the principle of the truths to a self and what belongs to a self, annihilationism and eternalism and the like, though in the truths there is not the slightest thing such as a self; the greed and so on cut by seeing arise taking these as object, and so they are all called afflictions depending on a non-thing. Afflictions cut by cultivation regard form and so on as good or ugly and so on; but the objects such as form are not without some slight differences of good and ugly and so on, so they can be called afflictions depending on a thing. Moreover, afflictions cut by seeing arise from being deluded about the principle of the truths and are called depending on a non-thing, while afflictions cut by cultivation arise from being deluded about coarse things and are called depending on a thing. The principle of the truths is real and so one can surely rely on it; once holy wisdom has realized it, there is certainly no principle of falling back. The appearance of things is false and has no fixed basis to rely on, and one who cuts off those afflictions of delusion may suffer loss of mindfulness and fall back. Or afflictions cut by cultivation do not arise from careful consideration, because they are of a dull nature. Afflictions cut by seeing arise from careful consideration, because they are of the nature of deliberation.

聖不審慮於麁事中失念或生，審慮不爾，如於繩等率爾謂蛇。故修斷惑聖有退起，非由率爾可起見惑。聖若審慮便見諦理，故聖見斷定無退義。經部師說：從阿羅漢亦無退義。彼說應理。云何知然？由教理故。知何由教？經言：苾芻！聖慧斷惑名為實斷。又契經言：我說有學應不放逸，非阿羅漢。雖有經言：佛告慶喜：我說利養等亦障阿羅漢，而不說退阿羅漢果，但說退失現法樂住。經言：不動心解脫身作證，我定說無因緣從此退故。若謂有退，由經說有時愛解脫，我亦許然。但應觀察彼之所退，為應果性、為靜慮等？然彼根本靜慮等持，要待時現前，故名時解脫。彼為獲得現法樂住，數希現前故名為愛。有說：此定是所愛味，諸阿羅漢果性解脫恆隨逐故不應名時，更不欣求故不名愛。若應果性容有退者，如何世尊但說所證現法樂住有可退理。由此證知，諸阿羅漢果性解脫必是不動。然由利等擾亂過失，有於所得現法樂住退去自在，謂諸鈍根；若諸利根則無退失。故於所得現法樂住有退無退，故名退不退法。如是思等如理應思。不退、安住、不動何別？非練根得名為不退，練根所得名為不動。此二所起殊勝等至，設遇退緣亦無退理。安住法者，但於已住諸勝德中能無退失，不能更引餘勝德生，設復引生從彼可退。是不退等三種差別。然喬底迦昔在學位，於時解脫極噉味故，又鈍根故數數退失，深自厭責執刀自害。由於身命無所戀惜，臨命終時得阿羅漢便般涅槃，故喬底迦亦非退失阿羅漢果。又增十經作如是說：一法應起，謂時愛心解脫。一法應證，謂不動心解脫。若應果性名為時愛心解脫者，何故於此增十經中再說應果？又曾無處說阿羅漢果名為應起，但說名應證。又說鈍根所攝應果名為應起，為顯何義？若為顯彼能起現前，則餘利根最應能起。若為顯彼應起現前，亦餘利根最所應起。故時解脫非應果性。

(The treatise continues:) The holy, without careful consideration, may lose mindfulness or give rise to something in coarse matters; with careful consideration this is not so, as when one hastily takes a rope for a snake. Therefore the holy may relapse into afflictions cut by cultivation, but the afflictions of seeing cannot arise hastily. If the holy consider carefully, they see the principle of the truths, so there is certainly no principle of falling back in what the holy cut off by seeing. The Sautrantika masters say: There is also no principle of falling back from arhatship. They say it is reasonable. How do we know it is so? By teaching and reasoning. How do we know by teaching? The sutra says: Bhikshus, afflictions cut off by holy wisdom are called truly cut off. And the sutra says: I say that learners should not be negligent, not arhats. Although there is a sutra in which the Buddha told Ananda, I say that gain and the like also obstruct arhats, it does not say that they fall back from the fruit of arhatship, but only that they lose the pleasant abiding in the present life. The sutra says: One who has realized the unshakable liberation of mind with the body, I definitely say, has no cause or condition for falling back from it. If one says there is falling back because the sutra speaks of liberation in time through love, I also allow this. But one should examine what they fall back from, whether the nature of an arhat or the meditative absorptions and so on. In fact the meditative absorptions and equipoises of the root state must be waited for to become present, so they are called liberation in time. In order to obtain pleasant abiding in the present life, they often hope for it to be present, so it is called love. Some say: This absorption is the savor that is loved; the liberation of the arhat's nature always follows them, so it should not be called in time and, as they no longer seek it, it is not called love. If the nature of an arhat could fall back, how could the World-Honored One say only that the pleasant abiding in the present life that was realized can fall back? From this we know that the liberation of the nature of every arhat is certainly unshakable. Yet because of the fault of disturbance by gain and the like, there are those who lose control over the pleasant abiding in the present life they obtained, namely those of dull faculty; those of sharp faculty do not lose it. So with regard to the pleasant abiding in the present life that was obtained, there is falling back and not falling back, and so they are called dharmas of falling back and not falling back. The same should be considered for the thinking kind and the rest. What is the difference among the non-falling, the steadily abiding and the unshakable? One who does not attain it by refining the faculties is called non-falling, and one who attains it by refining the faculties is called the unshakable. The excellent equipoises arising in these two certainly do not fall back even if they meet conditions of falling back. The steadily abiding kind can only avoid falling back among the excellent virtues in which he already abides, but cannot further bring forth other excellent virtues, and if he brings them forth he can fall back from them. These are the differences among the three, non-falling and the others. Yet Kautika (the name of a bhikshu), when formerly in the learner stage, fell back again and again because he was extremely fond of the taste of liberation in time and because of his dull faculties, and deeply blamed himself and took a knife to harm himself. Because he had no attachment to his body or life, at the time of his death he became an arhat and entered parinirvana, so Kautika too did not fall back from the fruit of arhatship. Also, the Sutra of Increasing by Ten says: One dharma should be brought forth, namely liberation of mind in time through love. One dharma should be realized, namely unshakable liberation of mind. If the nature of an arhat is called liberation of mind in time through love, why is arhatship said again in this sutra of increasing by ten? Also, nowhere is the fruit of arhatship called to be brought forth, but only called to be realized. Moreover, it is said that arhatship included in dull faculty is to be brought forth; to show what meaning? If it were to show that it can bring forth presence, then others of sharp faculty can bring it forth best. If it were to show that it should be brought forth into presence, then others of sharp faculty are most to be brought forth. Therefore liberation in time is not the nature of an arhat.

若爾，何故說時解脫應果？謂有應果根性鈍故，要待時故定方現前。若與彼相違，名不時解脫。阿毘達磨亦作是言：欲貪隨眠由三處起，一欲貪隨眠未斷遍知故、二順彼經法正現在前故、三於彼正起非理作意故。若謂彼據具因生說，復有何法因不具生？是名由教。如何由理？若阿羅漢有令煩惱畢竟不起治道已生，是則不應退起煩惱。若阿羅漢此道未生，未能永拔煩惱種故，應非漏盡。若非漏盡，寧說為應？是名由理。若爾，應釋炭喻契經。如說：多聞諸聖弟子若行若住，有處有時失念故生惡不善覺。此經唯說阿羅漢果，由此經言：彼聖弟子心於長夜隨順遠離，廣說乃至臨入涅槃。餘契經中有即說此順遠離等名應果力。又此經說：彼於一切順漏已能永吐、已得清涼。由此定知是阿羅漢。實後所說是阿羅漢，然彼乃至於行住時未善通達，容有此事。謂有學者於行住時，由失念故容起煩惱，後成無學則無起義。前依學位，故說無失。毘婆沙師定作是說：阿羅漢果亦有退義。唯阿羅漢種性有六，為餘亦有六種性耶？設有皆能修練根不？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) If so, why is liberation in time said to be of an arhat? Because there are arhats whose faculty by nature is dull, and they must wait for the time for absorption to become present. If it is contrary to that, it is called liberation not in time. The Abhidharma also says: The latent tendency of desire and greed arises from three places: first, because the latent tendency of desire and greed has not been cut off or fully known; second, because the objects that accord with it are actually present; third, because one directs improper attention toward them. If one says that this is said in terms of when all the causes are complete, what dharma is there whose causes are not complete? This is called by teaching. How by reasoning? If an arhat has generated a counteracting path that makes afflictions never arise, then afflictions should not relapse. If an arhat has not generated this path, since he has not yet pulled out the seeds of afflictions forever, he should not have exhausted the outflows. If he has not exhausted the outflows, how can he be called worthy? This is called by reasoning. If so, we should explain the sutra of the simile of embers. As it says: The learned noble disciple, whether walking or staying, in some place and at some time, because of loss of mindfulness gives rise to evil and unwholesome thoughts. This sutra refers only to the fruit of arhatship, since this sutra says: The mind of that noble disciple through the long night accords with seclusion, and so on up to the time of entering nirvana. Other sutras say precisely this accord with seclusion and so on is the power of the arhat's fruit. Also this sutra says: He has already forever vomited out all that accords with the outflows and has obtained coolness. From this we know for certain that he is an arhat. In fact what is said afterward is about an arhat, but up to the time of walking and staying he has not yet thoroughly penetrated, and such a thing may occur. That is, a learner may, when walking and staying, give rise to afflictions through loss of mindfulness, but when he later becomes no-more-learning there is no meaning of arising. The earlier statement was made in terms of the learner stage, so it is said that there is no loss. The Vibhasa masters definitely say: There is also falling back from arhatship. Are there six lineages only for arhats, or are there six lineages also for others? And if so, can all refine their faculties? The verse says:

學異生亦六，練根非見道。

Learners and ordinary beings also have six; refining the faculties is not in the path of seeing.

論曰：有學異生種性亦六，六種應果彼為先故。然見道位必無練根，此位無容起加行故。唯於信解異生位中，能修練根如無學位。如契經說：我說由斯所證四種增上心所現法樂住隨一有退，所得不動心解脫身作證，我決定說無因緣從此退。如何不動法退現法樂住？頌曰：

The treatise says: Learners and ordinary beings also have six lineages, since the six lineages of arhats are preceded by those. But in the stage of the path of seeing there is certainly no refining of faculties, since there is no room for preparatory practice in this stage. Only in the stage of ordinary beings of faith-liberation can one refine the faculties, as in the stage of no-more-learning. As the sutra says: I say that one of the four kinds of pleasant abiding in the present life attained through higher mind can fall back, but for the unshakable liberation of mind realized with the body I definitely say that there is no cause or condition for falling back from it. How does one of the unshakable nature fall back from the pleasant abiding of the present life? The verse says:

應知退有三，已未得受用，

One should know that there are three kinds of falling back: what has been attained, what has not been attained, and enjoyment,

佛唯有最後，利中後鈍三。

the Buddha has only the last, and the sharp, the middle and the dull have three.

論曰：應知諸退總有三種：一已得退，謂退已得殊勝功德。二未得退，謂未能得殊勝功德。三受用退，謂諸已得殊勝功德不現在前。於此三中，世尊唯有一受用退，以具眾德，無容一時頓現前故。餘不動法具有受用及未得退，亦於勝己殊勝功德猶未得故。餘五種性容具有三，亦容退失已得德故。約受用退，說不動法退現法樂，無相違過。無退論者作如是說：諸無漏解脫皆名不動。然別立第六不動法者，如前釋通，不應為難。諸阿羅漢既許退果，為更生不？諸住果時所不作事退時作不？不爾。何緣？頌曰：

The treatise says: One should know that falling back is of three kinds in all: first, falling back from what has been attained, namely falling back from excellent merits already attained; second, falling back from what has not been attained, namely not yet being able to attain excellent merits; third, falling back from enjoyment, namely excellent merits already attained not being present. Among these three, the World-Honored One has only the one of enjoyment, because he has all virtues and they cannot all be made present at one time. The unshakable others have both falling back from enjoyment and from what has not been attained, since they have not yet attained the excellent merits of those superior to themselves. The other five lineages may have all three, and may also lose merits already attained. In terms of falling back from enjoyment, the unshakable are said to fall back from pleasant abiding in the present life, and there is no fault of contradiction. Those who argue that there is no falling back speak thus: All liberations without outflows are called unshakable. But as for establishing the sixth, the unshakable, separately, the previous explanation covers it and there should be no objection. Since arhats are allowed to fall back from the fruit, are they reborn? And do they, when they fall back, do what they do not do when abiding in the fruit? It is not so. Why? The verse says:

一切從果退，必得不命終，

All who fall back from the fruit certainly do not die in between;

住果所不為，慚增故不作。

what one does not do when abiding in the fruit one does not do, because of increased shame.

論曰：無從果退中間命終，退已須臾必還得故。如契經說：苾芻當知，如是多聞諸聖弟子退失正念，速復還能令所退起盡沒滅離。若謂不然，修梵行果應非安隱可委信處。又住果位所不應為違果事業，由慚增故於暫退時亦必不造，譬如壯士雖蹶不僕。如上所言，有練根得無學有學，正練根時各幾無間、幾解脫道？何性攝？何所依？頌曰：

The treatise says: There is no death in between when falling back from the fruit, because after falling back one certainly regains it in a short time. As the sutra says: Bhikshus, you should know that when such learned noble disciples lose right mindfulness, they can quickly recover and make what fell back arise, be exhausted, vanish and leave. If it were not so, the fruit of the holy life would not be secure or a place of trust. Also, what one does not do when abiding in the stage of the fruit, deeds contrary to the fruit, one certainly does not commit even when temporarily falling back, because shame increases; it is like a strong man who does not fall down even when he stumbles. As said above, there are those who attain no-more-learning and learner by refining the faculties; when they are refining the faculties, how many uninterrupted paths and paths of liberation do they each have? What nature do they belong to and what do they rely on? The verse says:

練根無學位，九無間解脫，

In the stage of no-more-learning, refining the faculties has nine uninterrupted paths and nine paths of liberation,

久習故學一，無漏依人三，

for learners one, because of long habit; without outflows, relying on persons, three,

無學依九地，有學但依六，

no-more-learning relies on nine realms, learners rely only on six,

捨果勝果道，唯得果道故。

abandoning the fruit and the path of the superior fruit, because only the path of the fruit is obtained.

論曰：求勝種性修練根者，無學位中轉一一性各九無間、九解脫道，如得應果。所以者何？彼鈍根性由久串習，非少功力可能令轉，學無學道所成堅故。有學位中轉一一性，各一無間、一解脫道，如得初果，上相違故。彼加行道諸位各一。如是無間及解脫道，一切唯是無漏性攝。聖者必無用有漏道而轉根理，非增上故。依謂身地，此所依身唯人三洲，餘無退故。此所依地，無學通九，謂未至、中間、四定、三無色。有學唯六，謂除後三。所以者何？夫轉根者，容有捨果及勝果道，所得唯果非向道故。無有學果無色地攝，故學練根但依六地。諸無學位補特伽羅，總有幾種？由何差別？頌曰：

The treatise says: One who seeks an excellent lineage and refines the faculties in the stage of no-more-learning, in changing each lineage has nine uninterrupted paths and nine paths of liberation, as in attaining arhatship. Why? Because that dull faculty has been long habituated, and it cannot be changed with little effort, since it was made firm by the paths of learning and no-more-learning. In the learner stage, in changing each lineage there is one uninterrupted path and one path of liberation each, as in attaining the first fruit, because of the contrary just stated. Each stage of the preparatory path has one. All these uninterrupted paths and paths of liberation belong to the nature without outflows. A holy person certainly cannot change faculties using a path with outflows, because it is not a higher path. Reliance means the body and the realm. The body relied on is only that of humans of the three continents, because the others have no falling back. As for the realm relied on, for no-more-learning it extends to nine, namely the access stage, the intermediate absorption, the four meditative absorptions and the three formless realms. For learners there are only six, excluding the last three. Why? Because one who changes faculty may abandon the fruit and the path of the superior fruit, and what is obtained is only the fruit and not the path of direction. There is no learner fruit that belongs to the formless realm, so learners refine the faculties relying only on six realms. How many kinds of persons in the stage of no-more-learning are there in all? By what are they differentiated? The verse says:

七聲聞二佛，差別由九根。

Seven hearers and two Buddhas, differentiated by nine faculties.

論曰：居無學位聖者有九，謂七聲聞及二覺者。退法等五不動分二，後先別故，名七聲聞。獨覺、大覺名二覺者。由下下等九品根異，令無學聖成九差別。學無學位有七聖者，一切聖者皆此中攝：一隨信行、二隨法行、三信解、四見至、五身證、六慧解脫、七俱解脫。依何立七？事別有幾？頌曰：

The treatise says: The holy persons who abide in the stage of no-more-learning are nine, namely seven hearers and two kinds of awakened ones. The five from the one who can fall back to the unshakable, with the unshakable divided in two according to later and earlier, are called seven hearers. The solitary realizer and the great awakened one are called two awakened ones. By the differences of nine grades of faculty from the lowest of the low and so on, the holy of no-more-learning become nine kinds. In the stages of learning and no-more-learning there are seven holy persons, and all holy persons are included in them: first, the one who follows faith; second, the one who follows the Dharma; third, the one liberated by faith; fourth, the one who has attained seeing; fifth, the body-witness; sixth, the one liberated by wisdom; seventh, the one liberated in both ways. On what are the seven based? How many distinct things are there? The verse says:

加行根滅定，解脫故成七，

Seven are established by preparatory practice, faculty, cessation absorption and liberation;

此事別唯六，三道各二故。

the distinct things are only six, since the three paths each have two.

論曰：依加行異立初二種，謂依先時隨他及法於所求義修加行故，立隨信行、隨法行名。依根不同立次二種，謂依鈍利信慧根增，如次名為信解、見至。依得滅定立身證名，由身證得滅盡定故。依解脫異立後二種，謂依唯慧離煩惱障者立慧解脫，依兼得定離解脫障者立俱解脫。此名雖七事別唯六，謂見道中有二聖者，一隨信行、二隨法行，此至修道別立二名，一信解、二見至，此至無學復立二名，謂時解脫、不時解脫。應知此中一隨信行根故成三，謂下中上；性故成五，謂退法等；道故成十五，謂八忍七智？離染故成七十三，謂具縛離八地染；依身故成九，謂三洲、欲天。若根、性、道、離染、依身相乘，合成一億四萬七千八百二十五種。隨法行等如理應思。何等名俱及慧解脫？頌曰：

The treatise says: The first two kinds are established by differences of preparatory practice, namely the names follower of faith and follower of the Dharma are established according to whether one first follows others or the Dharma in practising for the meaning sought. The next two kinds are established by differing faculties, namely according to dull and sharp, faith or wisdom increasing, they are called liberated by faith and attained to seeing respectively. The name body-witness is established by attaining the cessation absorption, since one realizes the cessation absorption with the body. The last two kinds are established by differences of liberation: the one liberated by wisdom is established as one who detaches from the obstruction of afflictions by wisdom alone, and the one liberated in both ways is established as one who detaches from the obstruction of liberation by also having attained absorption. Although the names are seven, the distinct things are only six: in the path of seeing there are two holy persons, the follower of faith and the follower of the Dharma; up to the path of cultivation two names are separately established, the one liberated by faith and the one who has attained seeing; and up to no-more-learning two further names are established, namely liberated in time and liberated not in time. One should know that here the follower of faith becomes three by faculty, namely lower, middle and superior; five by nature, namely the falling-back and the rest; fifteen by path, namely eight acceptances and seven knowledges; seventy-three by detachment, namely fully bound and detached from the eight realms; nine by body, namely the three continents and the desire-realm heavens. If faculty, nature, path, detachment and body are multiplied together, they come to one hundred and four million seven thousand eight hundred and twenty-five kinds. The follower of the Dharma and the rest should be considered accordingly. What are called liberated in both ways and liberated by wisdom? The verse says:

俱由得滅定，餘名慧解脫。

Those liberated in both ways attain the cessation absorption; the others are called liberated by wisdom.

論曰：諸阿羅漢得滅定者名俱解脫，由慧定力解脫煩惱解脫障故。所餘未得滅盡定者名慧解脫，但由慧力於煩惱障得解脫故。如世尊說：五煩惱斷不可牽引未名滿學。學無學位各由幾因於等位中獨稱為滿？頌曰：

The treatise says: Arhats who attain the cessation absorption are called liberated in both ways, because they are liberated from the obstruction of afflictions and the obstruction of liberation by the power of wisdom and absorption. The others who have not attained the cessation absorption are called liberated by wisdom, because they are liberated from the obstruction of afflictions only by the power of wisdom. As the World-Honored One said: The five afflictions are cut off and cannot be drawn in again, so one is not yet called full in learning. By how many causes is one singled out as full among those in the stages of learning and no-more-learning? The verse says:

有學名為滿，由根果定三；

The learner is called full through the three of faculty, fruit and absorption;

無學得滿名，但由根定二。

the no-more-learning obtains the name full only through the two of faculty and absorption.

論曰：學於學位獨得滿名，具由三因，謂根、果、定。有有學者但由根故亦得滿名，謂諸見至未離欲染。有有學者但由果故亦得滿名，謂信解不還未得滅盡定。有有學者由根果故亦得滿名，謂見至不還未得滅盡定。有有學者由果定故亦得滿名，謂諸信解得滅盡定。有有學者具由三故獨得滿名，謂諸見至得滅盡定。無有學者但由定故及根定故亦得滿名。諸無學者於無學位由根定二獨得滿名，無學位中無非果滿，故無由果亦立滿名。有但由根亦名為滿，謂不時解脫未得滅盡定。有但由定亦名為滿，謂時解脫得滅盡定。有具由二獨名為滿，謂不時解脫已得滅盡定。廣說諸道差別無量，謂世出世見修道等。略說幾道能遍攝耶？頌曰：

The treatise says: A learner alone obtains the name full in the learner stage through three causes, namely faculty, fruit and absorption. Some learners obtain the name full only by faculty, namely those who have attained seeing and have not yet detached from the defilement of desire. Some learners obtain the name full only by fruit, namely non-returners liberated by faith who have not yet attained the cessation absorption. Some learners obtain the name full by faculty and fruit, namely non-returners who have attained seeing and have not yet attained the cessation absorption. Some learners obtain the name full by fruit and absorption, namely those liberated by faith who have attained the cessation absorption. Some learners alone obtain the name full through all three, namely those who have attained seeing and have attained the cessation absorption. There are no learners who obtain it only by absorption, nor by faculty and absorption. Those who are no-more-learning alone obtain the name full in the stage of no-more-learning through the two of faculty and absorption; in the stage of no-more-learning there is nothing that is not full in fruit, so the name full is not established through fruit. Some are called full only through faculty, namely those liberated not in time who have not attained the cessation absorption. Some are called full only through absorption, namely those liberated in time who have attained the cessation absorption. Some alone are called full through both, namely those liberated not in time who have attained the cessation absorption. The varieties of paths, if described at length, are immeasurable, namely worldly and supramundane, the paths of seeing and cultivation, and so on. Briefly, how many paths can cover all? The verse says:

應知一切道，略說唯有四，

One should know that all paths, briefly speaking, are only four,

謂加行無間，解脫勝進道。

namely the path of preparation, the uninterrupted path, the path of liberation, and the path of surpassing progress.

論曰：加行道者，謂從此後無間道生。無間道者，謂此能斷所應斷障。解脫道者，謂已解脫所應斷障最初所生。勝進道者，謂三餘道。道義云何？謂涅槃路，乘此能往涅槃城故。或復道者，謂求所依，依此尋求涅槃果故。解脫、勝進如何名道？與道類同，轉上品故，或前前力至後後故、或能趣入無餘依故。道於餘處立通行名，以能通達趣涅槃故。此有幾種？依何建立？頌曰：

The treatise says: The path of preparation is that after which the uninterrupted path arises. The uninterrupted path is that which can cut off the obstruction to be cut off. The path of liberation is what first arises when the obstruction to be cut off has already been liberated from. The path of surpassing progress is the other three paths. What is the meaning of path? It is the road to nirvana, since riding on it one can go to the city of nirvana. Or a path is that which one seeks to rely on, because relying on it one seeks the fruit of nirvana. Why are liberation and surpassing progress called paths? Because they are of the same kind as the path and turn toward the superior, or because the power of the earlier ones reaches the later ones, or because they can lead into nirvana without remainder. In other places the path is given the name of the way of practice, because it can lead through to nirvana. How many kinds are there? On what are they established? The verse says:

通行有四種，樂依本靜慮，

There are four ways of practice: pleasant ones rely on the root meditative absorptions,

苦依所餘地，遲速鈍利根。

painful ones rely on other realms; slow and swift are by dull and sharp faculty.

論曰：經說通行總有四種：一苦遲通行、二苦速通行、三樂遲通行、四樂速通行。道依根本四靜慮生名樂通行，以攝受支止觀平等任運轉故。道依無色、未至、中間名苦通行，以不攝支止觀不等艱辛轉故。謂無色定觀減止增，未至、中間觀增止減。即此樂苦二通行中，鈍根名遲、利根名速。二行於境通達稽遲故名遲通，翻此名速。或遲鈍者所起通行名遲通行，速此相違。道亦名為菩提分法。此有幾種？名義云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The sutra says that there are four ways of practice in all: first, the painful and slow way; second, the painful and swift way; third, the pleasant and slow way; fourth, the pleasant and swift way. A path arising in reliance on the four root meditative absorptions is called the pleasant way, because it is accepted with the limbs, calm and insight are even, and it proceeds spontaneously. A path relying on the formless realms, the access stage and the intermediate absorption is called the painful way, because it is not accepted with the limbs, calm and insight are uneven, and it proceeds with hardship. In the formless absorptions insight decreases and calm increases; in the access stage and the intermediate absorption insight increases and calm decreases. Among these pleasant and painful ways, dull faculty is called slow and sharp faculty is called swift. In the two ways one is slow in penetrating the object, so it is called slow penetration, and the contrary is called swift. Or the way of practice arisen by the slow and dull is called the slow way, and swift is the contrary. The path is also called the factors of awakening. How many kinds are there? What are the names and meanings? The verse says:

覺分三十七，謂四念住等，

The factors of awakening are thirty-seven, namely the four foundations of mindfulness and so on;

覺謂盡無生，順此故名分。

awakening means exhaustion and non-arising, and they are called factors because they accord with it.

論曰：經說覺分有三十七，謂四念住、四正斷、四神足、五根、五力、七等覺支、八聖道支。盡、無生智說名為覺。隨覺者別立三菩提：一聲聞菩提、二獨覺菩提、三無上菩提。無明睡眠皆永斷故，及如實知已作已事不復作故，此二名覺。三十七法順趣菩提，是故皆名菩提分法。此三十七體各別耶？不爾。云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The sutra says there are thirty-seven factors of awakening, namely the four foundations of mindfulness, the four right abandonings, the four bases of spiritual power, the five faculties, the five powers, the seven factors of awakening, and the eightfold noble path. The knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising are called awakening. According to awakening, three kinds of bodhi are established separately: the bodhi of the hearer, the bodhi of the solitary realizer, and unsurpassed bodhi. They are called awakening because ignorance and sleep are forever cut off, and because one knows as it really is that what was to be done has been done and will not be done again. These thirty-seven dharmas lead toward bodhi, so they are all called factors of awakening. Are these thirty-seven distinct in essence? Not so. How is it? The verse says:

此實事唯十，謂慧勤定信，

Their real things are only ten, namely wisdom, effort, concentration, faith,

念喜捨輕安，及戒尋為體。

mindfulness, joy, equanimity, tranquility, and discipline and initial thought as essences.

論曰：此覺分名雖三十七，實事唯十，即慧勤等。謂四念住、慧根、慧力、擇法覺支、正見，以慧為體。四正斷、精進根、精進力、精進覺支、正精進，以勤為體。四神足、定根、定力、定覺支、正定，以定為體。信根、信力，以信為體。念根、念力、念覺支、正念，以念為體，喜覺支以喜為體，捨覺支以行捨為體，輕安覺支以輕安為體，正語、正業、正命以戒為體，正思惟以尋為體。如是覺分實事唯十，即是信等五根力上，更加喜、捨、輕安、戒、尋。毘婆沙師說有十一，身業語業不相雜故戒分為二，餘九同前。念住等三名無別屬，如何獨說為慧勤定？頌曰：

The treatise says: Although these factors of awakening are called thirty-seven, their real things are only ten, namely wisdom, effort and so on. The four foundations of mindfulness, the faculty of wisdom, the power of wisdom, the factor of awakening of discrimination of dharmas, and right view have wisdom as their essence. The four right abandonings, the faculty of effort, the power of effort, the factor of awakening of effort, and right effort have effort as their essence. The four bases of spiritual power, the faculty of concentration, the power of concentration, the factor of awakening of concentration, and right concentration have concentration as their essence. The faculty of faith and the power of faith have faith as their essence. The faculty of mindfulness, the power of mindfulness, the factor of awakening of mindfulness, and right mindfulness have mindfulness as their essence. The factor of awakening of joy has joy as its essence, the factor of awakening of equanimity has the equanimity of formations as its essence, the factor of awakening of tranquility has tranquility as its essence, right speech, right action and right livelihood have discipline as their essence, and right thought has initial thought as its essence. Thus the real things of the factors of awakening are only ten, namely the five faculties and powers of faith and the rest, with joy, equanimity, tranquility, discipline and initial thought added. The Vibhasa masters say there are eleven, because discipline is divided into two, since bodily action and verbal action are not mixed, and the other nine are the same as before. The foundations of mindfulness and the other three groups have no name specially belonging to them, so why are they said to be only wisdom, effort and concentration? The verse says:

四念住正斷，神足隨增上，

The four foundations of mindfulness, right abandonings and bases of spiritual power follow what predominates,

說為慧勤定，實諸加行善。

and are said to be wisdom, effort and concentration, in fact the wholesome acts of preparation.

論曰：四念住等三品善法，體實遍攝諸加行善，然隨同品增上善根，如次說為慧勤及定。何緣於慧立念住名？毘婆沙師作如是說：慧由念力持令住故。理實由慧令念住境，如實見者能明記故，如念住中已廣成立。何故說勤名為正斷？於正修習斷修位中，此勤力能斷懈怠故。或名正勝，於正持策身語意中此最勝故。何緣於定立神足名？諸靈妙德所依止故。有餘師說：神即是定，足謂欲等。彼應覺分事有十三，增欲心故。又違經說，如契經言：吾今為汝說神足等，神謂受用種種神境分一為多，乃至廣說。足謂欲等四三摩地，此中佛說定果名神，欲等所生等持名足。何緣信等先說為根，後名為力？由此五法依下上品分先後故，又依可屈伏不可屈伏故。信等何緣次第如是？謂於因果先起信心為果修因，次起精進，由精進故念住所緣，由念力持心便得定，心得定故能如實知，是故信等如是次第。當言何位何覺分增？頌曰：

The treatise says: The three groups of wholesome factors beginning with the four foundations of mindfulness actually include all wholesome preparatory practices, but according to the wholesome roots that grow in accord with each group, they are named in order as wisdom, effort and concentration. Why is the name "foundation of mindfulness" given to wisdom? The Vaibhasika masters say: Because wisdom, by the power of mindfulness, is held to remain in place. In truth it is wisdom that makes mindfulness abide on its object, since one who sees things as they are can remember them clearly, as already fully established in the discussion of the foundations of mindfulness. Why is effort called right abandonment? Because in the stages of right practice, abandoning and cultivating, the power of this effort can cut off laziness. Or it is called right supremacy, because among the right exertions of body, speech and mind it is the most excellent. Why is the name "basis of spiritual power" given to concentration? Because it is the support of all marvelous qualities. Other masters say: spiritual power is itself concentration, and the basis means desire and the rest. According to them the factors of awakening would be thirteen in number, since desire would be added as a mental factor. Moreover, it contradicts the sutra, as the sutra says: I will now explain to you the spiritual powers and so on; spiritual power means the enjoyment of various supernormal abilities, such as making one into many, and so on at length; the bases mean the four samadhis of desire and the rest. Here the Buddha says that the fruit of concentration is called spiritual power, and the equipoise arising from desire and the rest is called the basis. Why are faith and the others first called faculties and later powers? Because these five factors are divided into earlier and later according to lower and higher grades, and also according to whether they can or cannot be overcome. Why are faith and the rest in this order? That is, regarding cause and effect, one first gives rise to faith, cultivates the cause for the sake of the result, then gives rise to diligence; because of diligence there is an object of mindfulness; by the power of mindfulness the mind attains concentration; and because the mind attains concentration it can know things as they are. This is why faith and the others are in this order. Which factor of awakening should be said to increase in which stage? The verse says:

初業順決擇，及修見道位，

At the stage of the beginner, of the factors that accord with penetration, of cultivation and of the path of seeing,

念住等七品，應知次第增。

the seven groups, mindfulness foundations and the rest, should be known to increase in order.

論曰：初業位中能審照了身等四境，慧用勝故說念住增。煖法位中能證異品殊勝功德，勤用勝故說正斷增。頂法位中能持勝善趣無退德，定用勝故說神足增。忍法位中必不退墮，善根堅固得增上義故說根增。第一位中非惑世法所能屈伏，得無屈義故說力增。修道位中近菩提位，助覺勝故說覺支增。見道位中速疾而轉，通行勝故說道支增。然契經中隨數增說先七後八，非修次第。八中正見是道亦道支，餘是道支而非道。七中擇法是覺亦覺支，餘是覺支而非覺。毘婆沙師所說如是。有餘於此不破契經所說次第立念住等，謂修行者將修行時，於多境中其心馳散，先修念住制伏其心，故契經言：此四念住能於境界繫縛其心，及正遣除耽嗜依念。是故念住說在最初。由此勢力勤遂增長，為成四事正策持心，是故正斷說為第二。由精進故無憂悔心，便有堪能修治勝定，是故神足說在第三。勝定為依，便令信等與出世法為增上緣，由此五根說為第四。根義既立，能正伏除所治現行牽生聖法，由此五力說為第五。於見道位建立覺支，如實覺知四聖諦故。通於二位建立道支，俱通直往涅槃城故。如契經說：於八道支修圓滿者，於四念住至七覺支亦修圓滿。又契經說：苾芻當知，宣如實言者，喻說四聖諦。令依本路速行出者，喻令修習八聖道支。故知八道支通依二位說。隨增位說次第既然，理實應言。此三十七幾通有漏、幾無漏耶？頌曰：

The treatise says: In the beginner's stage one can examine and illuminate the four objects of body and so on, and because the function of wisdom is superior, the foundations of mindfulness are said to increase. In the stage of heat one can realize the distinctive excellent qualities of the opposite class, and because the function of effort is superior, the right abandonments are said to increase. In the stage of the summit one can hold on to the quality of not falling back from the excellent wholesome destinies, and because the function of concentration is superior, the bases of spiritual power are said to increase. In the stage of patience one never falls back, and because the wholesome roots are firm and attain the meaning of dominance, the faculties are said to increase. In the supreme worldly dharma stage one cannot be overcome by defilements or worldly dharmas, attaining the meaning of being unconquerable, and so the powers are said to increase. In the path of cultivation, near the stage of bodhi, the aid to awakening is superior, and so the factors of awakening are said to increase. In the path of seeing one moves swiftly, and because passing through is superior, the factors of the path are said to increase. However, the sutras mention them in order of increasing number, seven first and then eight, which is not the order of cultivation. Among the eight, right view is both path and a factor of the path, while the rest are factors of the path but not the path. Among the seven, discrimination of Dharma is both awakening and a factor of awakening, while the rest are factors of awakening but not awakening. This is what the Vaibhasikas say. Others, without contradicting the order stated in the sutras, establish the order of the foundations of mindfulness and the rest as follows: when a practitioner is about to practice, his mind is scattered among many objects, so he first cultivates the foundations of mindfulness to subdue his mind; therefore the sutra says: These four foundations of mindfulness can bind the mind to its object and rightly remove clinging and dependence on craving. Therefore the foundations of mindfulness are said to be first. By this power effort then grows, rightly urging and sustaining the mind to accomplish the four tasks, and therefore right abandonment is said to be second. Because of diligence there is no worry or regret in the mind, and one is able to cultivate excellent concentration, so the bases of spiritual power are said to be third. Relying on excellent concentration, faith and the rest become dominant conditions for supramundane dharmas, and so the five faculties are said to be fourth. Once the meaning of faculty is established, one can rightly subdue and remove the active defilements that are to be cured and bring forth noble dharmas, and so the five powers are said to be fifth. In the path of seeing the factors of awakening are established, because one awakens to the four noble truths as they are. The factors of the path are established as common to both stages, since both go straight to the city of nirvana. As the sutra says: One who has perfected the eight factors of the path has also perfected the four foundations of mindfulness up to the seven factors of awakening. Also the sutra says: Bhiksus, know that one who speaks the truth as it is is a metaphor for the four noble truths, and one who makes people return along their original road and go out quickly is a metaphor for making them cultivate the eight noble path factors. So one knows that the eight factors of the path are spoken of in relation to both stages. Since the order is stated according to the stage of increase, this is the reasoning in truth. Of these thirty-seven, how many are defiled and how many undefiled? The verse says:

七覺八道支，一向是無漏；

The seven factors of awakening and the eight path factors are always undefiled;

三四五根力，皆通於二種。

the three, four and five (the right abandonments, bases of spiritual power, and faculties and powers) all apply to both kinds.

論曰：此中七覺、八聖道支唯是無漏，唯於修道見道位中方建立故。世間亦有正見等法，而彼不得聖道支名。所餘皆通有漏、無漏。此三十七何地有幾？頌曰：

The treatise says: Among these, the seven factors of awakening and the eight noble path factors are only undefiled, because they are established only in the stages of the path of cultivation and the path of seeing. There are also right view and similar dharmas in the world, but they do not receive the name of noble path factors. The rest all apply to both defiled and undefiled. Of these thirty-seven, how many are in each ground? The verse says:

初靜慮一切，未至除喜根，

The first dhyana has all of them; the preliminary ground lacks the joy faculty;

二靜慮除尋，三四中除二。

the second dhyana lacks investigation; the third and fourth, and the intermediate, lack two.

前三無色地，除戒前二種，

The first three formless grounds lack the precepts and the former two kinds;

於欲界有頂，除覺及道支。

the desire realm and the peak of existence lack the factors of awakening and of the path.

論曰：初靜慮中具三十七，於未至地除喜覺支，近分地中勵力轉故、於下地法猶疑慮故。第二靜慮除正思惟，彼靜慮中已無尋故。由此二地各三十六。第三第四靜慮中間，雙除喜尋各三十五。前三無色除戒三支併除喜尋各三十二。欲界有頂除覺道支各二十二，無無漏故，覺分轉時必得證淨。此有幾種？依何位得？實體是何法？有漏無漏耶？頌曰：

The treatise says: In the first dhyana all thirty-seven are present; in the preliminary ground the joy factor of awakening is lacking, because in the near-access ground one proceeds with effort and still has doubt about the dharmas of the lower ground. The second dhyana lacks right thought, because in that dhyana there is no investigation. Thus each of these two grounds has thirty-six. In the third and fourth dhyanas and the intermediate dhyana, both joy and investigation are lacking, so each has thirty-five. The first three formless grounds lack the three precept factors and also joy and investigation, so each has thirty-two. The desire realm and the peak of existence lack the factors of awakening and of the path, each having twenty-two, because there is no undefiled dharma there. When the factors of awakening are active, one is sure to attain confirmed faith. How many kinds are there? In which stage are they attained? What is their actual substance? Are they defiled or undefiled? The verse says:

證淨有四種，謂佛法僧戒，

Confirmed faith is of four kinds: in the Buddha, the Dharma, the Sangha, and the precepts;

見三得法戒，見道兼佛僧，

on seeing the three truths one attains confirmed faith in Dharma and precepts; in the path of seeing one gains also the Buddha and Sangha;

法謂三諦全，菩薩獨覺道，

Dharma means the complete three truths; for Bodhisattvas and Pratyekabuddhas, the path (truth) as well;

信戒二為體，四皆唯無漏。

faith and precepts are their substance; all four are only undefiled.

論曰：經說證淨總有四種：一於佛證淨、二於法證淨、三於僧證淨、四聖戒證淨。且見道位見三諦時，一一唯得法戒證淨。見道諦位兼得佛僧，謂於爾時兼於成佛諸無學法，成聲聞僧學無學法亦得證淨。兼言為顯見道諦時亦得於法及戒證淨。然所信法略有二種，一別、二總。總通四諦，別唯三諦全。菩薩獨覺道，故見四諦時皆得法證淨。聖所愛戒與現觀俱，故一切時無不亦得。由所信別故名有四，應知實事唯有二種，謂於佛等三種證淨以信為體，聖戒證淨以戒為體，故唯有二。如是四種唯是無漏，以有漏法非證淨故。為依何義立證淨名？如實覺知四聖諦理故名為證。所信三寶及妙屍羅皆名為淨，離不信垢破戒垢故。由證得淨立證淨名。如出觀時現起次第，故說觀內次第如是。如何出時現起次第？謂出觀位先信世尊是正等覺，次於正法毘奈耶中信是善說，後信聖位是妙行者。正信三寶猶如良醫及如良藥、看病者故。由心淨故發淨屍羅，是故屍羅說為第四。要具淨信此乃現前，如遇三緣病方除故。或此四種，猶如導師、道路商侶及所乘乘。經言：學位成就八支，無學位中具成就十。何緣不說有學位中有正解脫及有正智？正脫正智其體是何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The sutra says that there are altogether four kinds of confirmed faith: first, confirmed faith in the Buddha; second, in the Dharma; third, in the Sangha; fourth, in the noble precepts. Now in the path of seeing, when one sees the three truths, one attains in each only the confirmed faith in Dharma and in the precepts. In the stage of seeing the truth of the path one also attains the Buddha and the Sangha; that is, at that time one also gains confirmed faith in all the dharmas of no-more-learning that accomplish Buddhahood, and in the dharmas of learning and no-more-learning that constitute the Sravaka Sangha. The word "also" shows that when one sees the truth of the path, one also attains confirmed faith in the Dharma and the precepts. As for the Dharma that is believed, there are in outline two kinds, particular and general. The general includes all four truths, the particular only the full three truths. For Bodhisattvas and Pratyekabuddhas, in the path, therefore when they see the four truths they attain confirmed faith in the Dharma in all. The precepts loved by the noble ones are present together with direct realization, so at all times there is none who does not attain them. Because the objects of faith are distinguished, they are said to be four, but it should be known that in actual substance there are only two kinds: confirmed faith in the Buddha and the other two Jewels takes faith as its substance, and confirmed faith in the noble precepts takes the precepts as its substance, so there are only two. These four are only undefiled, since defiled dharmas are not confirmed faith. On what meaning is the name "confirmed faith" established? Because one awakens to the principle of the four noble truths as they are, it is called confirmed (realized). The Three Jewels that are believed and the excellent moral conduct are all called pure, because they are free from the stain of faithlessness and the stain of broken precepts. The name "confirmed faith" is established from attaining purity through realization. As on emerging from contemplation the order in which they arise is thus, it is said that the order within contemplation is thus. How do they arise on emerging? On emerging from contemplation one first believes that the World-Honored One is perfectly enlightened, then believes that the true Dharma and Vinaya are well taught, and later believes that the noble community is of excellent conduct. The right faith in the Three Jewels is like a good physician, good medicine and a nurse. Because the mind is pure, pure moral conduct arises, which is why moral conduct is said to be fourth. This appears only when pure faith is complete, just as an illness is cured only when three conditions are met. Or these four are like a guide, a road, fellow travelers and the vehicle one rides. The sutra says: In the stage of learning one accomplishes eight factors; in the stage of no-more-learning one accomplishes ten. Why is it not said that in the stage of learning there are right liberation and right knowledge? What is the substance of right liberation and right knowledge? The verse says:

學有餘縛故，無正脫智支，

Because the learner still has other bonds, he has no factors of right liberation and knowledge;

解脫為無為，謂勝解惑滅。

liberation is unconditioned, namely the extinction of defilements, and also determination (resolve).

有為無學支，即二解脫蘊，

The conditioned factor of the no-more-learner is the aggregate of the two liberations;

正智如覺說，謂盡無生智。

right knowledge is as explained for awakening, namely the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising.

論曰：有學位中尚有餘縛未解脫故無解脫支。非離少縛可名脫者，非無解脫體可立解脫智。無學已脫諸煩惱縛，復能起二瞭解脫智，由二顯了可立二支。有學不然，故唯成八。解脫體有二，謂有為、無為。有為解脫謂無學勝解，無為解脫謂一切惑滅。有為解脫名無學支，以立支名依有為故。支攝解脫復有二種，即餘經言心、慧解脫。應知此二即解脫蘊。若爾，不應契經中說：云何解脫清淨最勝？謂心從貪離染解脫，及從瞋痴離染解脫。於解脫蘊未滿為滿、已滿為攝修欲勤等，故解脫蘊非唯勝解。若爾，是何？有餘師說：由真智力遣貪瞋痴，即心離垢名解脫蘊。如是已說正解脫體。正智體者如前覺說，謂即前說盡、無生智。心於何世正得解脫而言無學心解脫耶？頌曰：

The treatise says: In the stage of learning there are still other bonds not yet liberated, so there is no factor of liberation. One cannot call liberated someone who is not free of a few bonds, and without a substance of liberation one cannot establish the knowledge of liberation. The one beyond learning is already freed from all bonds of the afflictions and can further give rise to two knowledges that understand liberation; because these two make it clear, two factors can be established. The learner is not so, and so he accomplishes only eight. Liberation has two kinds of substance, conditioned and unconditioned. Conditioned liberation is the determination of the one beyond learning; unconditioned liberation is the extinction of all defilements. Conditioned liberation is called a factor of the one beyond learning, because factors are established on the basis of the conditioned. The liberation included in the factors again has two kinds, namely what other sutras call liberation of mind and liberation by wisdom. It should be known that these two are the aggregate of liberation. If so, the sutra should not say: What is the purest and most excellent liberation? It is the mind being liberated from the stain of greed, and from the stain of hatred and delusion. As for the aggregate of liberation, to complete it where it is not complete, and to include and cultivate desire, effort and so on where it is complete, the aggregate of liberation is not only determination. If so, what is it? Other masters say: By the power of true knowledge, greed, hatred and delusion are removed, and the mind being free of defilement is called the aggregate of liberation. Thus the substance of right liberation has been explained. As for the substance of right knowledge, it is as explained earlier for awakening, namely the knowledge of exhaustion and non-arising spoken of earlier. In which time does the mind rightly attain liberation, so that the mind of the one beyond learning is said to be liberated? The verse says:

無學心生時，正從障解脫。

When the mind of the one beyond learning arises, it is rightly liberated from obstruction.

論曰：如本論說，初無學心未來生時從障解脫。何謂為障？謂煩惱得。由彼能遮此心生故。金剛喻定正滅位中彼得正斷，初無學心於正生位正得解脫。金剛喻定已滅位中彼得已斷，初無學心於已生位名已解脫。未生無學及世俗心，當於爾時亦名解脫。然今且說決定生者，以於爾時行身世故。諸世俗心從何解脫？亦即從彼遮心生障。未解脫位此豈不生？雖有已生，不似今者。彼何所似？與惑得俱。此後若生，無俱惑得。道於何位令生障斷？頌曰：

The treatise says: As the original treatise says, when the first mind of no-more-learning is about to arise in the future, it is liberated from obstruction. What is called obstruction? It is the acquisition of defilement, because it blocks the arising of this mind. In the moment when the vajra-like concentration is rightly extinguishing, that acquisition is rightly cut off, and the first mind of no-more-learning in the moment of rightly arising rightly attains liberation. When the vajra-like concentration has already ceased, that acquisition has already been cut off, and the first mind of no-more-learning, in the stage of having arisen, is called already liberated. The not yet arisen minds of no-more-learning and the worldly minds are also called liberated at that time. However, we are now speaking only of what is certain to arise, because at that time it has the activity of its body in the world. From what are the worldly minds liberated? Also from that very obstruction that blocks the arising of mind. In the stage of not yet being liberated, did this not arise? Although some have arisen already, they are not like the present one. What is it that they resemble? They are together with the acquisition of defilement. Afterward, if they arise, they have no accompanying acquisition of defilement. In which stage does the path cut off the obstruction to arising? The verse says:

道唯正滅位，能令彼障斷。

The path, only in the moment of rightly ceasing, can cut off that obstruction.

論曰：正滅位言顯居現在。正生言顯未來世故。道能斷障唯正滅時，餘位定無斷障用故。非如解脫通未生者，以生未生離障同故。經說三界謂斷、離、滅，以何為體？差別云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The words "moment of rightly ceasing" show that it is in the present. The word "rightly arising" refers to the future period. The path can cut off obstruction only at the moment of ceasing; in other stages there is certainly no function of cutting off obstruction. It is not like liberation, which extends also to what has not yet arisen, since in arising and not yet arisen the separation from obstruction is the same. The sutra speaks of the three realms: of abandonment, of detachment and of cessation. What is their substance? How do they differ? The verse says:

無為說三界，離界唯離貪，

Three realms are said to be unconditioned; the realm of detachment is only detachment from greed;

斷界斷餘結，滅界滅彼事。

the realm of abandonment is abandoning the other fetters; the realm of cessation is the cessation of those matters.

論曰：斷等三界，即分前說無為解脫以為自體。言離界者，謂但離貪。言斷界者，謂斷餘結。言滅界者，謂滅所餘貪等隨眠所隨增事故。經說三界即無為解脫。若事能厭必能離耶？不爾。云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The three realms of abandonment and the rest take as their own substance the unconditioned liberation distinguished above. The realm of detachment means only detachment from greed. The realm of abandonment means abandoning the other fetters. The realm of cessation means the cessation of the matters to which the other latent tendencies such as greed adhere and increase. The sutra says that the three realms are the unconditioned liberation. If something can produce aversion, can it necessarily produce detachment? No. How? The verse says:

厭緣苦集慧，離緣四能斷，

Aversion takes suffering and its origin as object; detachment takes the four as object and can cut off;

相對互廣陿，故應成四句。

in relation to each other they are broad and narrow, and so four alternatives should be formed.

論曰：唯緣苦集所起忍智說名為厭，餘則不然。四諦境中所起忍智，能斷惑者皆得離名，廣狹有殊故成四句。有厭非離，謂緣苦集不令惑斷所有忍智，緣厭境故、非離染故。有離非厭，謂緣滅道能令惑斷所有忍智，緣欣境故、能離染故。有厭亦離，謂緣苦集能令惑斷所有忍智。有非厭離，謂緣滅道不令惑斷所有忍智。應知此中先離欲染後見諦者，所有法忍及諸智中加行解脫勝進道攝不令惑斷，惑已斷故、非斷治故。

The treatise says: Only the patience and knowledge that arise taking suffering and its origin as object are called aversion; the others are not so. The patience and knowledge arising in the objects of the four truths that can cut off defilements all receive the name of detachment; since they differ in breadth and narrowness, four alternatives result. There is aversion but not detachment: namely, any patience and knowledge that take suffering and its origin as object but do not cut off defilements, because they take the object of aversion and are not detachment from defilement. There is detachment but not aversion: any patience and knowledge that take cessation and the path as object and cut off defilements, because they take the object of delight and can bring detachment from defilement. There is both aversion and detachment: any patience and knowledge that take suffering and its origin as object and cut off defilements. There is neither aversion nor detachment: any patience and knowledge that take cessation and the path as object and do not cut off defilements. It should be understood that here, for one who first detached from desire and later saw the truths, the patience for Dharma and all the knowledges included in the path of preparation, the path of liberation and the path of further progress do not cut off defilements, since the defilements have already been cut off and they are not antidotes that cut off.

尊者世親造

Composed by the Venerable Vasubandhu

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by the Tripitaka Master Xuanzang by imperial command

分別智品第七之一

Chapter Seven, Part One: Analysis of Knowledge

前品初說諸忍諸智，於後復說正見正智。為有忍非智耶？為有智非見耶？頌曰：

In the previous chapter the various patiences and knowledges were first discussed, and afterward right view and right knowledge were discussed. Is there patience that is not knowledge? Is there knowledge that is not view? The verse says:

聖慧忍非智，盡無生非見，

Noble wisdom: patience is not knowledge; exhaustion and non-arising are not view;

餘二有漏慧，皆智六見性。

the other two are defiled wisdom; all are knowledge, and six are of the nature of view.

論曰：慧有二種，有漏、無漏，唯無漏慧立以聖名。此聖慧中八忍非智性，自所斷疑未已斷故。可見性攝，推度性故。盡與無生二智非見性，已息求心不推度故。所餘皆通智見二性，已斷自疑、推度性故。諸有漏慧皆智性攝，於中唯六亦是見性，謂五染汙見、世正見為六。如是所說聖有漏慧，皆擇法故並慧性攝。智有幾種？相別云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Wisdom is of two kinds, defiled and undefiled, and only undefiled wisdom is called noble. Among this noble wisdom, the eight patiences are not of the nature of knowledge, because the doubts to be cut off by them have not yet been cut off. They are included in the nature of view, because they have the nature of inquiry. The knowledges of exhaustion and non-arising are not of the nature of view, because the search of the mind has already ceased and they no longer inquire. The rest all have both natures, knowledge and view, since their own doubts have been cut off and they have the nature of inquiry. All defiled wisdoms are included in the nature of knowledge, and of these only six are also of the nature of view, namely the five defiled views and worldly right view, making six. These noble and defiled wisdoms are all of the nature of wisdom because they discriminate dharmas. How many kinds of knowledge are there? How do their characteristics differ? The verse says:

智十總有二，有漏無漏別，

There are ten knowledges, in general two, divided as defiled and undefiled;

有漏稱世俗，無漏名法類。

the defiled is called worldly (conventional); the undefiled is called Dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge.

世俗遍為境，法智及類智，

Worldly knowledge takes everything as object; Dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge

如次欲上界，苦等諦為境。

respectively take the truths of suffering and so on in the desire realm and in the upper realms as object.

論曰：智有十種攝一切智：一世俗智、二法智、三類智、四苦智、五集智、六滅智、七道智、八他心智、九盡智、十無生智。如是十智總唯二種，有漏、無漏性差別故。如是二智相別有三，謂世俗智、法智、類智。前有漏智總名世俗，多取瓶等世俗境故。後無漏智分法、類別。三中世俗遍，以一切有為無為為所緣境。法類二種如其次第，以欲上界四諦為境。即於如是二種智中，頌曰：

The treatise says: Knowledge is of ten kinds and includes all knowledge: first, worldly knowledge; second, Dharma-knowledge; third, subsequent knowledge; fourth, knowledge of suffering; fifth, knowledge of origin; sixth, knowledge of cessation; seventh, knowledge of the path; eighth, knowledge of others' minds; ninth, knowledge of exhaustion; tenth, knowledge of non-arising. These ten knowledges are in general only two kinds, because of the difference in the nature of defiled and undefiled. The characteristics of these two are three, namely worldly knowledge, Dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge. The first, defiled knowledge, is called worldly knowledge in general, because it mostly takes conventional objects such as vases. The latter, undefiled knowledge, is divided into Dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge. Among the three, worldly knowledge is universal, taking all conditioned and unconditioned things as its objects. Dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge, in order, take the four truths of the desire realm and of the upper realms as objects. Concerning these two kinds of knowledge, the verse says:

法類由境別，立苦等四名，

Dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge, by difference of object, are given the four names of suffering and the rest;

皆通盡無生，初唯苦集類。

all extend to exhaustion and non-arising; at the first, subsequent knowledge only of suffering and origin.

論曰：法智、類智由境差別分為苦、集、滅、道四智。如是六智若無學攝，非見性者名盡、無生。此二初生唯苦、集類，以緣苦、集六種行相觀有頂蘊為境界故。金剛喻定境同此耶？緣苦、集因，緣滅、道異。於前所說九種智中，頌曰：

The treatise says: Dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge, by difference of object, are divided into four knowledges: of suffering, origin, cessation and path. If these six knowledges are included in the stage of no-more-learning and are not of the nature of view, they are called exhaustion and non-arising. The first arising of these two is only the subsequent knowledge of suffering and origin, because they take the six aspects of suffering and origin and contemplate the aggregates of the peak of existence as their object. Is the object of the vajra-like concentration the same as this? It takes suffering and origin as its cause (as in this), but differs in taking cessation and the path. Among the nine knowledges already mentioned, the verse says:

法類道世俗，有成他心智，

Dharma-knowledge, subsequent knowledge, the path and worldly knowledge accomplish knowledge of others' minds;

於勝地根位，去來世不知，

in the higher ground, faculty and stage, it does not know; past and future it does not know;

法類不相知，聲聞麟喻佛，

Dharma and subsequent knowledge do not know each other; Sravaka, rhinoceros-horn and Buddha

如次知見道，二三念一切。

know in order the path of seeing, two, three, and all moments of thought.

論曰：有法類道及世俗智成他心智，餘則不然。此智於境有決定相，謂不知勝及去來心。勝心有三，謂地、根、位。地謂下地智不知上地心。根謂信解時解脫根智不知見至不時解脫心。位謂不還聲聞應果、獨覺大覺。前前位智不知後後勝位者心，此智不知去來心者唯以現在他相續中能緣心等為境界故。又法類品不互相知，謂法智攝諸他心智不知類品，類智所攝諸他心智不知法品，由法類智以欲上界全分對治為所緣故。此他心智見道中無，總觀諦理極速轉故，然皆容作此智所緣。若諸有情將入見道，聲聞獨覺預修加行，為欲知彼見道位心。彼諸有情入見道位，聲聞法分加行若滿，知彼見道初二念心。若為更知類分心故，別修加行至加行滿，彼已度至第十六心，雖知此心非知見道。麟喻法分加行若滿，知彼見道初二念心。若為更知類分心故，別修加行至加行滿，知彼第八集類智心。以此但由下加行故。有說：知初二及第十五心，世尊欲知不由加行，於彼見道一切能知。盡、無生智二相何別？頌曰：

The treatise says: Those who have Dharma-knowledge, subsequent knowledge, knowledge of the path and worldly knowledge accomplish knowledge of others' minds; the others do not. This knowledge has determinate features regarding its object: it does not know the superior, nor minds of the past and future. The superior mind is of three kinds, namely ground, faculty and stage. Ground means that knowledge of a lower ground does not know the mind of a higher ground. Faculty means that, as to the faculty of liberation at the time of faith and understanding, knowledge does not know the minds of those who have attained by view and are liberated not at a particular time. Stage means that, among the non-returner, the Sravaka arhat, the Pratyekabuddha and the great awakened one, the knowledge of each earlier stage does not know the mind of a later, superior stage. This knowledge does not know past and future minds because it takes only the minds that are active in the present continuum of another as its object. Also, Dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge do not know each other; that is, the knowledges of others' minds included in Dharma-knowledge do not know the class of subsequent knowledge, and those included in subsequent knowledge do not know the Dharma class, because Dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge take as objects the full antidotes of the desire realm and of the upper realms respectively. This knowledge of others' minds does not exist in the path of seeing, since one contemplates the truths comprehensively and moves extremely quickly; however, all of them can be objects of this knowledge. If beings are about to enter the path of seeing, Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas first cultivate preparatory practice, wishing to know the minds of those in the stage of the path of seeing. When those beings enter the path of seeing, if a Sravaka has completed the preparatory practice for the Dharma portion, he knows the first two moments of their mind in the path of seeing. If, in order to know further the mind of the subsequent portion, he cultivates separate preparatory practice until it is complete, they have already passed to the sixteenth mind; though he knows this mind, he does not know the path of seeing. If a rhinoceros-horn Pratyekabuddha has completed the preparatory practice for the Dharma portion, he knows the first two moments of their mind in the path of seeing. If, in order to know further the mind of the subsequent portion, he cultivates separate preparatory practice until it is complete, he knows the eighth mind, the subsequent knowledge of origin. This is only because of the lower preparatory practice. Some say: he knows the first two moments and the fifteenth mind. The Buddha, when he wishes to know, does not depend on preparatory practice and can know all of that path of seeing. How do the two knowledges of exhaustion and non-arising differ in their characteristics? The verse says:

智於四聖諦，知我已知等，

Knowledge of the four noble truths: "I have known" and so on,

不應更知等，如次盡無生。

"it need not be known again" and so on, in order exhaustion and non-arising.

論曰：如本論說：云何盡智？謂無學位若正自知：我已知苦、我已斷集、我已證滅、我已修道，由此所有智、見、明、覺、解、慧、光、觀，是名盡智。云何無生智？謂正自知：我已知苦，不應更知，廣說乃至我已修道，不應更修，由此所有廣說乃至是名無生智。如何無漏智可作如是知？迦濕彌羅諸論師說：從二智出後得智中作如是知，故無有失。由此後得二智別故，表前觀中二智差別。有說：無漏智亦作如是知，然說見言乘言便故，或於諦理現照轉故。由此本論亦作是言。且諸智亦是見。如是十智相攝云何？謂世俗智攝一全一少分，法類智各攝一全七少分，苦集滅智各攝一全四少分，道智攝一全五少分，他心智攝一全四少分，盡無生智各攝一全六少分。何緣二智建立為十？頌曰：

The treatise says: As the original treatise says: What is the knowledge of exhaustion? In the stage of no-more-learning, when one rightly knows for oneself: I have known suffering, I have abandoned the origin, I have realized cessation, I have cultivated the path; whatever knowledge, view, clarity, awakening, understanding, wisdom, light and contemplation there is thereby, this is called the knowledge of exhaustion. What is the knowledge of non-arising? It is rightly knowing for oneself: I have known suffering and need not know it again, and so on at length up to: I have cultivated the path and need not cultivate it again; whatever there is thereby, and so on at length, is called the knowledge of non-arising. How can undefiled knowledge make such a judgment? The Kashmiri masters say: It makes such a judgment in the knowledge attained subsequent to the two knowledges, and so there is no fault. By this difference of the two subsequently attained knowledges, the difference of the two knowledges in the earlier contemplation is shown. Others say: Undefiled knowledge also makes such a judgment, but "view" is mentioned because of the vehicle or occasion of expression, or because it illuminates the truths directly and in operation. For this reason the original treatise also says so. Moreover, the various knowledges are also view. How, then, do the ten knowledges include one another? Worldly knowledge includes one in full and one in part; Dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge each include one in full and seven in part; the knowledges of suffering, origin and cessation each include one in full and four in part; the knowledge of the path includes one in full and five in part; the knowledge of others' minds includes one in full and four in part; the knowledges of exhaustion and non-arising each include one in full and six in part. Why are the two knowledges established as ten? The verse says:

由自性對治，行相行相境，

By nature, antidote, aspect, aspect and object,

加行辦因圓，故建立十智。

preparatory practice, work accomplished and cause complete, the ten knowledges are established.

論曰：由七緣故立二為十：一自性故立世俗智，非勝義智為自性故。二對治故立法類智，全能對治欲上界故。三行相故立苦集智，此二智境體無別故。四行相境故立滅道智，此二行相境俱有別故。五加行故立他心智，非此不知他心所法，本修加行為知他心，雖成滿時亦知心所，而約加行故立他心智名。六事辦故建立盡智，事辦身中最初生故。七因圓故立無生智，一切聖道為因生故。如上所言法智類智，全能對治欲上界法，為有少分治上欲耶？頌曰：

The treatise says: By seven conditions the two are established as ten: first, by nature, worldly knowledge is established, because its nature is not ultimate knowledge. Second, by antidote, Dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge are established, because they are the full antidote of the desire realm and the upper realms. Third, by aspect, the knowledges of suffering and origin are established, because the objects of these two knowledges do not differ in substance. Fourth, by aspect and object, the knowledges of cessation and the path are established, because their aspects and objects both differ. Fifth, by preparatory practice, the knowledge of others' minds is established; without it one does not know the mental factors of others, one cultivates the original preparatory practice in order to know others' minds, and although when it is completed one also knows mental factors, the name "knowledge of others' minds" is established by reference to the preparatory practice. Sixth, because the task is accomplished, the knowledge of exhaustion is established, because it first arises in the body whose task is done. Seventh, because the cause is complete, the knowledge of non-arising is established, because it arises with all noble paths as its cause. Of the Dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge described above, which are full antidotes of the dharmas of the desire realm and the upper realms, is there a partial antidote to the upper? The verse says:

緣滅道法智，於修道位中，

The Dharma-knowledge that takes cessation and the path as object, in the path of cultivation,

兼治上修斷，類無能治欲。

also counteracts what is to be abandoned by cultivation in the upper; subsequent knowledge cannot counteract the desire realm.

論曰：修道所攝滅道法智，兼能對治上界修斷，欲之滅道勝上界故，已除自怨能兼他故。由此類智無能治欲。於此十智中誰有何行相？頌曰：

The treatise says: The Dharma-knowledge of cessation and the path included in the path of cultivation also can counteract what is to be abandoned by cultivation in the upper realms, because the cessation and path of the desire realm are superior to those of the upper realms, and having removed its own enemies it can also take on those of others. For this reason subsequent knowledge cannot counteract the desire realm. Among these ten knowledges, which has what aspects? The verse says:

法智及類智，行相俱十六，

Dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge each have sixteen aspects;

世俗此及餘，四諦智各四。

worldly knowledge has these and others; the knowledges of the four truths have four each.

他心智無漏，唯四謂緣道，

Undefiled knowledge of others' minds has only four, those that take the path;

有漏自相緣，俱但緣一事。

defiled knowledge takes its own characteristics as object; both take only one thing.

盡無生十四，謂離空非我。

Exhaustion and non-arising have fourteen, lacking emptiness and non-self.

論曰：法智、類智一一具有非常、苦等十六行相，十六行相後當廣釋。世智有此及更有餘，能緣一切法自共相等故。苦等四智一一各有緣自諦境四種行相。他心智中，若無漏者唯有緣道四種行相，由此即是道智攝故；若有漏者取自所緣心心所法自相境故。如境自相行相亦爾，故此非前十六所攝。如是二種於一切時一念但緣一事為境，謂緣心時不緣心所，緣受等時不緣想等。若爾，何故薄伽梵說：如實了知有貪心等。非俱時取貪等及心，如不俱時取衣及垢。有貪心者，二義有貪：一貪相應、二貪所繫。貪相應心具由二義，餘有漏心唯貪所繫。有說：經言有貪心者，唯說第一貪相應心。離貪心者，謂治貪心。若貪不相應名離貪心者，餘惑相應者應得離貪名。若爾，有心非貪對治不染汙性，應許此心非有貪心離貪心等。是故應許餘師所說，為貪所繫名有貪心，乃至有痴離痴亦爾。毘婆沙師作如是說：聚心者謂善心，此於所緣不馳散故。散心者謂染心，此與散動相應起故。西方諸師作如是說：眠相應者名為聚心，餘染汙心說名為散。此不應理，諸染汙心若與眠相應，應通聚散故。又應違害本論所言：如實知聚心，具足有四智，謂法智、類智、世俗智、道智。沈心者謂染心，此與懈怠相應起故。策心者謂善心，此與正勤相應起故。小心者謂染心，少淨品者所好習故。大心者謂善心，多淨品者所好習故。或由根價眷屬隨轉力用少多故名小大，染心根少，極二相應故；善心根多，恆三相應故。染心價少，非功用成故；善心價多，大資糧成故。染心眷屬少，無未來修故；善心眷屬多，有未來修故。染心隨轉少，唯三蘊故；善心隨轉多，通四蘊故。染心力用少，所斷善根必還續故；善心力用多，忍必永斷諸隨眠故。由此染善得小大名。掉心者謂染心，掉舉相應故。不掉心者謂善心，能治彼故。不靜靜心應知亦爾。

The treatise says: Dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge each have the sixteen aspects of impermanence, suffering and so on, which will be explained at length later. Worldly knowledge has these and also others, since it can take the own-characteristics and common characteristics of all dharmas as object. Each of the four knowledges of suffering and so on has four kinds of aspect that take the object of its own truth. In the knowledge of others' minds, if it is undefiled, it has only the four aspects that take the path, since it is included in the knowledge of the path; if it is defiled, it takes as object the own-characteristics of the minds and mental factors it takes as its object. Its aspect is like the own-characteristic of the object, and so it is not included in the sixteen earlier ones. These two kinds, at all times, in a single moment take only one thing as object: when taking mind they do not take mental factors, and when taking sensation and so on they do not take perception and so on. If so, why did the Bhagavat say: One knows as it is a mind with greed, and so on? It does not mean that greed and so on and mind are taken at the same time, just as one does not take a garment and its dirt at the same time. As for "a mind with greed," "having greed" has two meanings: first, associated with greed; second, bound by greed. A mind associated with greed has both meanings, and other defiled minds are only bound by greed. Some say: The sutra, in speaking of a mind with greed, speaks only of the first, a mind associated with greed. A mind without greed means a mind that counteracts greed. If a mind not associated with greed were called a mind without greed, a mind associated with other defilements would receive the name "without greed." If so, a mind that is not an antidote to greed and is not defiled would have to be admitted as neither a mind with greed nor a mind without greed. Therefore one should admit what the other masters say: that being bound by greed is called having greed, and so too up to having delusion and being free of delusion. The Vaibhasika masters say: A collected mind means a wholesome mind, since it is not scattered on its object. A scattered mind means a defiled mind, since it arises together with scattering and agitation. The Western masters say: A mind associated with torpor is called a collected mind, and other defiled minds are called scattered. This is not reasonable, since if defiled minds are associated with torpor they would be both collected and scattered. It would also contradict the original treatise, which says: One who knows a collected mind as it is has four knowledges, namely Dharma-knowledge, subsequent knowledge, worldly knowledge and knowledge of the path. A sunken mind means a defiled mind, since it arises together with laziness. A uplifted mind means a wholesome mind, since it arises together with right effort. A small mind means a defiled mind, because it is fond of and habituated to a small number of pure factors. A great mind means a wholesome mind, because it is fond of and habituated to many pure factors. Or it is called small or great because of the lesser or greater function of its roots, value and retinue. A defiled mind has few roots, since it is associated with at most two; a wholesome mind has many roots, since it is always associated with three. A defiled mind has little value, since it is not accomplished by effort; a wholesome mind has great value, since it is accomplished by great provisions. A defiled mind has few attendants, since there is no cultivation in the future; a wholesome mind has many attendants, since there is cultivation in the future. A defiled mind accompanies few, only three aggregates; a wholesome mind accompanies many, extending to four aggregates. A defiled mind has little power, since wholesome roots that are cut off will certainly continue again; a wholesome mind has great power, since patience certainly cuts off the latent tendencies forever. Thus defiled and wholesome minds receive the names small and great. An agitated mind means a defiled mind, since it is associated with restlessness. An unagitated mind means a wholesome mind, since it can counteract that. The unstill and still minds should be understood to be the same.

不定心者謂染心，散動相應故；定心者謂善心，能治彼故。不修心者謂染心，得修習修俱不攝故；修心者謂善心，容有二修故。不解脫心者謂染心，自性相續不解脫故；解脫心者謂善心，自性相續容解脫故。如是所釋不順契經，亦不能辯諸句別義。如何此釋不順契經？經言：此心云何內聚？謂心若與惛眠俱行，或內相應有止無觀。云何外散？謂心遊涉五妙欲境隨散隨流，或內相應有觀無止。豈不前說染心眠俱便有一心通聚散過？雖說，非理，不許眠俱諸染汙心是散心故。豈不又說本論相違？寧違論文，勿違經說。如何不辯諸句別義？謂依此釋不能辯了散等聚等八異相故。依我所釋非不能辯此契經中八句別義，謂雖散等同是染心，而為顯其過失差別，及雖聚等同是善心，而為顯其功德差別，故依八義別立八名。既不能通所違經說，所辯句義理亦不成。又若沈心即掉心者，經不應說若於爾時心沈，恐沈修安定捨三覺支者名非時修。若於爾時心掉，恐掉修擇進喜名非時修。豈修覺支有散別理？此據作意欲脩名修，非現前修，故無有失。豈不我說亦不違經？雖諸染心皆名沈掉，懈怠增者經說沈心，掉舉增者經說掉心，據恆相應我說體一，隨自意語誰復能遮？然實此經意不如是。前說一切貪所繫心皆名有貪心。貪繫是何義？若貪得隨故，有學無漏心應名有貪，貪得隨故。若貪所緣故，無學有漏心應名有貪，貪所緣故。若不許彼為貪所緣，云何彼心可成有漏？若謂由為共相惑緣應名有痴，痴所緣故。然他心智不緣貪得，亦不可說緣緣心貪。寧知他心是有貪等？故非貪繫名有貪心。若爾，云何？今詳經意，貪相應故名有貪心，貪不相應名離貪等。若爾，何故餘契經言：離貪瞋痴心，不還墮三有。依離得說，故無有過。豈不於前已破此說？餘惑相應者，應得離貪名，彼亦與貪不相應故。若依此意，許亦無違。

(The treatise continues:) An unsettled mind means a defiled mind, since it is associated with scattering and agitation; a settled mind means a wholesome mind, since it can counteract that. An uncultivated mind means a defiled mind, since it is included in neither acquisition cultivation nor habituation cultivation; a cultivated mind means a wholesome mind, since it may have both cultivations. An unliberated mind means a defiled mind, since its nature and continuum are not liberated; a liberated mind means a wholesome mind, since its nature and continuum can be liberated. This explanation does not accord with the sutra, nor can it distinguish the separate meanings of the phrases. How does this explanation not accord with the sutra? The sutra says: How is the mind collected within? When the mind is accompanied by drowsiness, or is associated within with calm but without insight. How is it scattered outside? When the mind roams among the objects of the five marvelous desires and is scattered and flows along with them, or is associated within with insight but without calm. Did we not say before that a defiled mind accompanied by torpor would have the fault of being both collected and scattered in one mind? Though it was said, it is not reasonable, because it is not admitted that defiled minds accompanied by torpor are scattered minds. Does this not also contradict the original treatise? Better to contradict the treatise text than to contradict the sutra. How does it fail to distinguish the separate meanings of the phrases? That is, according to this explanation one cannot explain the eight different aspects of scattered and so on and collected and so on. According to my explanation I am not unable to explain the eight separate meanings of the phrases in this sutra: although scattered and the others are all defiled minds, they are given different names in order to show the differences of their faults, and although collected and the others are all wholesome minds, they are given different names in order to show the differences of their merits; so on the basis of the eight meanings eight names are separately established. Since it cannot reconcile the sutra it contradicts, the meaning of the phrases that it explains is also not established. Moreover, if a sunken mind were the same as an agitated mind, the sutra should not say: If at that time the mind is sunken, one should not at that time cultivate the three factors of awakening of tranquility, concentration and equanimity, for fear of cultivating sinking further, which is called cultivating at the wrong time; if at that time the mind is agitated, one should not cultivate discrimination, effort and joy, for fear of cultivating agitation, which is called cultivating at the wrong time. How can there be a distinction in cultivating the factors of awakening? This is called cultivating on the basis of intention to cultivate, not actual present cultivation, so there is no fault. Do I not also say that I do not contradict the sutra? Although all defiled minds are called sunken or agitated, the sutra calls it a sunken mind when laziness increases and an agitated mind when restlessness increases; from the point of constant association I say the substance is one, and who can stop me from speaking according to my own intention? In truth, however, the intention of this sutra is not so. As said before, all minds bound by greed are called minds with greed. What is the meaning of being bound by greed? If it is because of the acquisition of greed following along, then undefiled minds of the learner should be called having greed, because of the acquisition of greed following. If it is because of the object of greed, then defiled minds of the no-more-learner should be called having greed, because they are the object of greed. If you do not admit that they are the object of greed, how can that mind be defiled? If you say that because it is an object of a defilement with common characteristics it should be called having delusion, since it is the object of delusion; yet the knowledge of others' minds does not take the acquisition of greed, and one cannot say that it takes the greed that takes the mind as object. How can one know that another's mind has greed and so on? Therefore being bound by greed is not what is called a mind with greed. If so, what is it? Now, examining the sutra's intention, it is because of association with greed that it is called a mind with greed, and a mind not associated with greed is called without greed and so on. If so, why do other sutras say: A mind free of greed, hatred and delusion does not fall again into the three existences? It is said on the basis of detachment, so there is no fault. Have we not already refuted this earlier? A mind associated with other defilements would then be called free of greed, since it too is not associated with greed. If it is according to this meaning, it is also admitted without contradiction.

然不說為離貪心者，彼屬有瞋有痴等故。且止傍論，應述本宗。此所明他心智，為亦能取他心所緣，及亦取他心能緣行相不？俱不能取，知彼心時不觀彼所緣能緣行相故。謂但知彼有染等心，不知彼心所染色等，亦不知彼能緣行相。不爾，他心智應亦緣色等，又亦應有能自緣失。諸他心智有決定相，謂唯能取欲色界繫及非所繫他相續中現在同類心心所法一實自相為所緣境。空無相不相應，盡無生所不攝，不在見道無間道中，餘所不遮如應容有。盡無生智除空非我，各具有餘十四行相，由此二智雖勝義攝，而涉於世俗欲離空非我。謂由彼力於出觀時作如是言：我生已盡、梵行已立、所作已辦、不受後有。為有無漏越此十六更是所餘行相攝不？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) However, it is not called a mind free of greed, since it belongs to those with hatred, with delusion and so on. Let us stop this digression and set out our own doctrine. As for this knowledge of others' minds that has been explained, can it also take the object of another's mind, and can it also take the aspects of the other's mind that takes that object? Neither can be taken, because when one knows that mind, one does not contemplate the object it takes or the aspect by which it takes. That is, one knows only that the other has a defiled or other mind, and does not know the visible forms and so on by which that mind is defiled, nor the aspect by which it takes its object. If it were not so, the knowledge of others' minds would also take visible forms and so on, and would also have the fault of taking itself. The various knowledges of others' minds have a determinate character: they can take only, as object, the present mind and mental factors of the same kind, a single real own-characteristic, in the continuum of another, bound to the desire realm or form realm or not bound. Emptiness and non-self are not associated aspects (here), not included in exhaustion and non-arising, and not in the uninterrupted path or the path of seeing; as to the others, what is not excluded may be present as appropriate. The knowledges of exhaustion and non-arising each have fourteen other aspects, lacking emptiness and non-self; therefore, although these two knowledges are included in the ultimate, they involve the conventional and wish to be free of emptiness and non-self. That is, by their power on emerging from contemplation one says: My birth is exhausted, the holy life is established, what was to be done is done, and I will not receive another existence. Is there any undefiled aspect that goes beyond these sixteen and is included in another aspect? The verse says:

淨無越十六，餘說有論故。

There is no pure aspect beyond sixteen; other schools say there is, on account of the treatise.

論曰：迦濕彌羅國諸論師言：無無漏行相越此十六。外國師說：更有所餘無漏行相越於十六。云何知然？由本論故。如本論說：頗有不繫心能了別欲界繫法耶？曰：能了別，謂非常故、苦故、空故、非我故、因故、集故、生故、緣故，有是處、有是事，如理所引了別。若謂彼文不為顯示不繫心了別欲界繫法時，除前所明八行相外，別有有是處、有是事行相，但為顯示作八行相斯有是處、斯有是事。此釋不然，餘不說故。謂若彼論依此意說，應於餘處亦說此言，然彼餘文但作是說：頗有見斷心能了別欲界繫法耶？曰：能了別，謂我故、我所故、斷故、常故、無因故、無作故、損減故、尊故、勝故、上故、第一故、能清淨故、能解脫故、能出離故、惑故、疑故、猶豫故、貪故、瞋故、慢故、痴故，不如理所引了別。此等亦應說有是處等言，既無此言，故釋非理。十六行相實事有幾？何謂行相能行所行？頌曰：

The treatise says: The masters of the country of Kashmir say that there is no undefiled aspect beyond these sixteen. The masters of other countries say that there are other undefiled aspects beyond the sixteen. How is this known? From the original treatise. As the original treatise says: Is there an unbound mind that can discriminate dharmas bound to the desire realm? Answer: There is: namely, as impermanent, as suffering, as empty, as non-self, as cause, as origin, as arising, as condition; there is this possibility, there is this matter, as discriminated by correct reasoning. If you say that this passage is not meant to show that, when an unbound mind discriminates dharmas bound to the desire realm, there is a separate aspect of "there is this possibility, there is this matter" apart from the eight aspects shown above, but only shows that, in making the eight aspects, there is this possibility and this matter, this explanation is not right, because the others do not say so. That is, if that treatise spoke on this basis, this phrase should also be said in other places, but another passage of that treatise says only: Is there a mind abandoned by seeing that can discriminate dharmas bound to the desire realm? Answer: There is: namely, as self, as belonging to self, as to be abandoned, as permanent, as without cause, as without maker, as diminishing, as honored, as superior, as supreme, as first, as able to purify, as able to liberate, as able to lead out, as defilement, as doubt, as hesitation, as greed, as hatred, as pride, as delusion, as discriminated by incorrect reasoning. Here too one ought to say "there is this possibility" and so on, but since there is no such phrase, the explanation is not reasonable. How many actual things are there in the sixteen aspects? What is meant by aspect, by that which acts and that which is acted on? The verse says:

行相實十六，此體唯是慧，

In truth the aspects are sixteen; their substance is only wisdom;

能行有所緣，所行諸有法。

what acts has an object; what is acted on is all things that have it.

論曰：有餘師說：十六行相名雖十六實事唯七，謂緣苦諦名實俱四，緣餘三諦名四實一。如是說者實亦十六，謂苦聖諦有四相：一非常、二苦、三空、四非我，待緣故非常，逼迫性故苦，違我所見故空，違我見故非我。集聖諦有四相：一因、二集、三生、四緣，如種理故因，等現理故集，相續理故生，成辦理故緣，譬如泥團輪繩水等眾緣和合成辦瓶等。滅聖諦有四相：一滅、二靜、三妙、四離，諸蘊盡故滅，三火息故靜，無眾患故妙，脫眾災故離。道聖諦有四相：一道、二如、三行、四出，通行義故道，契正理故如，正趣向故行，能永超故出。又非究竟故非常，如荷重擔故苦，內離士夫故空，不自在故非我。牽引義故因，出現義故集，滋產義故生，為依義故緣。不續相續斷故滅，離三有為相故靜，勝義善故妙，極安隱故離。治邪道故道，治不如故如，趣入涅槃宮故行，棄捨一切有故出。如是古釋既非一門，故隨所樂更為別釋。生滅故非常，違聖心故苦，於此無我故空，自非我故非我。因集生緣如經所釋，謂五取蘊以欲為根、以欲為集、以欲為類、以欲為生，唯此生聲應在後說，與論為異。此四體相差別云何？由隨位別四欲有異：一執現總我起總自體欲、二執當總我起總後有欲、三執當別我起別後有欲、四執續生我起續生時欲。或執造業我起造業時欲，第一於苦是初因，故說名為因，如種子於果。第二於苦等招集，故說名為集，如芽等於果。第三於苦為別緣，故說名為緣，如田等於果，謂由田水糞等力故令果味勢熟德別生。第四於苦能近生，故說名為生，如華蘂於果。或如契經說：有二五二四愛行為四種欲。執現總我有五種異：一執我現決定有、二執我現如是有、三執我現變異有、四執我現有、五執我現無。執當總我亦有五異：一執我當決定有、二執我當如是有、三執我當變異有、四執我當有、五執我當無。

The treatise says: Other masters say: The sixteen aspects are sixteen in name but in actual things only seven, namely those that take the truth of suffering have four names and four things, while the other three truths have four names and one thing each. Those who say this also speak of sixteen real things, namely the noble truth of suffering has four aspects: first, impermanent; second, suffering; third, empty; fourth, non-self. It is impermanent because it is dependent on conditions, suffering because of its nature of oppression, empty because it is contrary to the view of what belongs to self, and non-self because it is contrary to the view of self. The noble truth of origin has four aspects: first, cause; second, origin; third, arising; fourth, condition. It is cause by the principle of the seed, origin by the principle of equal manifestation, arising by the principle of continuity, and condition by the principle of accomplishing, like the many conditions of clay lump, wheel, rope and water coming together to produce a vase and so on. The noble truth of cessation has four aspects: first, cessation; second, stillness; third, excellence; fourth, liberation (escape). It is cessation because the aggregates are exhausted, stillness because the three fires are quenched, excellence because it is without the many afflictions, and liberation because one is free of the many calamities. The noble truth of the path has four aspects: first, path; second, suchness; third, practice; fourth, going out. It is path because of the meaning of passing through, suchness because it accords with right principle, practice because it goes rightly toward the goal, and going out because it can lead out forever. Again, it is impermanent because it is not final, suffering like carrying a heavy burden, empty because it is inwardly free of a person, and non-self because it is not autonomous. It is cause in the meaning of drawing forth, origin in the meaning of coming into manifestation, arising in the meaning of nourishing and producing, and condition in the meaning of being a support. It is cessation because the continuity of non-continuing is cut off, stillness because it is free of the three marks of the conditioned, excellence because it is wholesome in the ultimate sense, and liberation because it is extremely secure. It is path because it cures wrong paths, suchness because it cures what is not so, practice because it goes into the palace of nirvana, and going out because it abandons all existence. Since such old explanations are not of a single kind, one may further give separate explanations as one likes: it is impermanent because of arising and perishing, suffering because it contradicts the noble mind, empty because there is no self in it, and non-self because it is itself not a self. Cause, origin, arising and condition are as explained in the sutra: that is, the five aggregates of clinging have desire as their root, desire as their origin, desire as their class, and desire as their arising; the word "arising" here should be explained later, differing from the treatise. How do the substances and characteristics of these four differ? By differences of stage, the four desires differ: first, grasping a general self in the present gives rise to desire for the general self-substance; second, grasping a general self in the future gives rise to desire for a general future existence; third, grasping a particular self in the future gives rise to desire for a particular future existence; fourth, grasping a self that continues to be reborn gives rise to desire at the time of rebirth. Or, grasping a self that creates karma gives rise to desire at the time of creating karma. The first is the initial cause of suffering and so is called cause, like a seed to its fruit. The second brings together suffering and so is called origin, like a sprout to its fruit. The third is a particular condition for suffering and so is called condition, like a field to its fruit, that is, by the power of the field, water, manure and so on, the flavor, strength and ripeness of the fruit are produced differently. The fourth can nearly produce suffering and so is called arising, like a flower stamen to its fruit. Or as the sutra says: the two, five, two and four cravings and practices are the four kinds of desire. Grasping a general present self has five differences: first, grasping that my self definitely exists now; second, grasping that my self exists in such a way now; third, grasping that my self exists in a changed form now; fourth, grasping that my self exists now; fifth, grasping that my self does not exist now. Grasping a general future self also has five differences: first, grasping that my self will definitely exist; second, that it will exist in such a way; third, that it will exist in a changed form; fourth, that it will exist; fifth, that it will not exist.

執當別我有四種異：一執我當別有、二執我當決定別有、三執我當如是別有、四執我當變異別有。執續生我等亦有四種異：一執我亦當有、二執我亦當決定有、三執我亦當如是有、四執我亦當變異有。流轉斷故滅，眾苦息故靜。如說苾芻諸行皆苦，唯有涅槃最為寂靜，更無上故妙，不退轉故離。如正道故道，如實轉故如，定能趣故行。如說此道能至清淨，餘見必無至清淨理，永離有故出。又為治常樂我所我見故修非常苦空非我行相，為治無因一因變因知先因見，故修因、集、生、緣行相。為治解脫是無見，故修滅行相。為治解脫是苦見，故修靜行相。為治靜慮及等至樂是妙見，故修妙行相。為治解脫是數退墮非永見，故修離行相。為治無道邪道餘道退道見，故修道、如、行、出行相。如是行相以慧為體。若爾，慧應非有行相，以慧與慧不相應故。由此應言諸心心所取境類別皆名行相，慧及諸餘心心所法有所緣故皆是能行，一切有法皆是所行。由此三門體有寬陿，慧通行相、能行、所行，餘心心所唯能所行，諸餘有法唯是所行。已辨十智行相差別，當辨性攝依他依身。頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) Grasping a particular future self has four differences: first, grasping that my self will exist separately; second, that my self will definitely exist separately; third, that my self will exist separately in such a way; fourth, that my self will exist separately in a changed form. Grasping a self that continues to be reborn and so on also has four differences: first, grasping that my self will also exist; second, that my self will also definitely exist; third, that my self will also exist in such a way; fourth, that my self will also exist in a changed form. It is cessation because the flowing on is cut off, and stillness because the many sufferings are quieted. As it is said: Bhiksus, all conditioned things are suffering; only nirvana is the most tranquil; there is nothing higher, and so it is excellent; it does not retreat, and so it is liberation. It is path because it is the right path, suchness because it proceeds as it is, practice because it surely leads onward. As it is said: This path can lead to purity, and in other views there is surely no possibility of reaching purity; and it is going out because it is forever free of existence. Furthermore, to counteract the views of permanence, bliss, self and belonging to self, one cultivates the aspects of impermanence, suffering, emptiness and non-self; to counteract the views of no cause, a single cause and a changing cause, and the view that knows a former cause, one cultivates the aspects of cause, origin, arising and condition. To counteract the view that liberation does not exist, one cultivates the aspect of cessation. To counteract the view that liberation is suffering, one cultivates the aspect of stillness. To counteract the view that the bliss of dhyana and attainments is excellent, one cultivates the aspect of excellence. To counteract the view that liberation is often fallen from and is not permanent, one cultivates the aspect of liberation. To counteract the views that there is no path, that wrong paths, other paths or paths that fall back are the path, one cultivates the aspects of path, suchness, practice and going out. These aspects have wisdom as their substance. If so, wisdom would have no aspect, since wisdom is not associated with wisdom. Therefore it should be said that the different kinds of objects taken by the various minds and mental factors are all called aspects; wisdom and the other minds and mental factors, having an object, are all that which acts; and all things that have it are what is acted on. In this way the three aspects have wider and narrower substances: wisdom includes aspect, that which acts and what is acted on; the other minds and mental factors are only that which acts and what is acted on; and the other things that have it are only what is acted on. Having explained the differences in the aspects of the ten knowledges, we should now explain their nature, their ground and their body. The verse says:

性俗三九善，依地俗一切，

By nature, worldly knowledge has three; the nine are wholesome; by ground, worldly knowledge is in all;

他心智唯四，法六餘十九，

knowledge of others' minds only four; Dharma-knowledge six; the others nineteen (nine, with the lower three formless);

現起所依身，他心依欲色，

as to the body on which it arises: knowledge of others' minds depends on the desire and form realms;

法智但依欲，餘八通三界。

Dharma-knowledge depends only on the desire realm; the other eight extend through the three realms.

論曰：如是十智三性攝者，謂世俗通三性，餘九智唯是善。依地別者，謂世俗智通依欲界乃至有頂，他心智唯依四根本靜慮，法智依此四及未至、中間，餘依此六地及下三無色。依身別者，謂他心智依欲色界俱可現前，法智但依欲界現起，餘八智現起通依三界身。已辯性地身，當辯念住攝。頌曰：

The treatise says: Of these ten knowledges, those included in the three natures are as follows: worldly knowledge extends over the three natures, while the other nine are only wholesome. As for differences of ground: worldly knowledge extends over the desire realm up to the peak of existence; knowledge of others' minds depends only on the four basic dhyanas; Dharma-knowledge depends on those four and the preliminary ground and the intermediate dhyana; the others depend on those six grounds and the lower three formless states. As for differences of body: knowledge of others' minds can be present depending on bodies of the desire realm and form realm; Dharma-knowledge arises only depending on the desire realm; the other eight arise depending on bodies of all three realms. Having explained nature, ground and body, we should now explain the inclusion in the foundations of mindfulness. The verse says:

諸智念住攝，滅智唯最後，

The various knowledges are included in the foundations of mindfulness; knowledge of cessation only in the last;

他心智後三，餘八智通四。

knowledge of others' minds in the last three; the other eight extend through all four.

論曰：滅智攝在法念住中，他心智後三攝，所餘八皆通四。如是十智展轉相望，一一當言幾智為境？頌曰：

The treatise says: The knowledge of cessation is included in the foundation of mindfulness of dharmas; the knowledge of others' minds in the last three; the other eight all extend to the four. Taking these ten knowledges in relation to one another, how many knowledges should each be said to take as object? The verse says:

諸智互相緣，法類道各九，

The knowledges take one another as objects: Dharma-knowledge, subsequent knowledge and the path each nine;

苦集智各二，四皆十滅非。

the knowledges of suffering and origin each two; four take all ten; the knowledge of cessation does not.

論曰：法智能緣九智為境，除類智。類智能緣九智為境，除法智。道智能緣九智為境，除世俗智，非道攝故。苦集二智一一能緣二智為境，謂俗、他心。世俗、他心、盡、無生智皆緣十智為境。滅智不緣諸智為境，唯以擇滅為所緣故。十智所緣總有幾法？何智幾法為所緣境？頌曰：

The treatise says: Dharma-knowledge can take nine knowledges as object, except subsequent knowledge. Subsequent knowledge can take nine knowledges as object, except Dharma-knowledge. The knowledge of the path can take nine knowledges as object, except worldly knowledge, since it is not included in the path. The two knowledges of suffering and origin can each take two knowledges as object, namely worldly knowledge and knowledge of others' minds. Worldly knowledge, knowledge of others' minds, and the knowledges of exhaustion and non-arising all take ten knowledges as object. The knowledge of cessation does not take any of the knowledges as object, since it takes only cessation through discrimination as its object. How many dharmas in total are taken as objects by the ten knowledges? How many dharmas are the objects of each knowledge? The verse says:

所緣總有十，謂三界無漏，

The objects taken in total are ten: the three realms, the undefiled,

無為各有二，俗緣十法五，

and the unconditioned each in two; worldly knowledge takes ten; Dharma-knowledge five;

類七苦集六，滅緣一道二，

subsequent knowledge seven; suffering and origin six; cessation one; path two;

他心智緣三，盡無生各九。

knowledge of others' minds three; exhaustion and non-arising nine each.

論曰：十智所緣總有十法，謂有為法分為八種，三界所繫無漏有為各有相應不相應故。無為分二種，善、無記別故。俗智總緣十法為境。法智緣五，謂欲界二、無漏道二及善無為。類智緣七，謂色無色無漏道六及善無為。苦集智各緣三界所繫六。滅智緣一，謂善無為。道智緣二，謂無漏道。他心智緣欲色無漏三相應法。盡無生智緣有為八及善無為。頗有一念智緣一切法不？不爾。豈不非我觀智知一切法皆非我耶？此亦不能緣一切法。不緣何法？此體是何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The objects of the ten knowledges are in total ten dharmas: the conditioned dharmas are divided into eight kinds, since the conditioned bound to each of the three realms, and the undefiled conditioned, each may be associated or not associated; the unconditioned is divided into two kinds, wholesome and neutral. Worldly knowledge takes all ten dharmas as object. Dharma-knowledge takes five: two of the desire realm, two of the undefiled path, and the wholesome unconditioned. Subsequent knowledge takes seven: the six of the form and formless realms and the undefiled path, and the wholesome unconditioned. The knowledges of suffering and origin each take the six bound to the three realms. The knowledge of cessation takes one, namely the wholesome unconditioned. The knowledge of the path takes two, namely the undefiled path. The knowledge of others' minds takes the three associated dharmas of the desire realm, form realm and the undefiled. The knowledges of exhaustion and non-arising take eight conditioned dharmas and the wholesome unconditioned. Is there a single moment of knowledge that takes all dharmas as object? No. Does not the contemplative knowledge of non-self know all dharmas to be non-self? This too cannot take all dharmas as object. Which dharma does it not take? What is its substance? The verse says:

俗智除自品，總緣一切法，

Worldly knowledge, excluding its own class, takes all dharmas in general;

為非我行相，唯聞思所成。

as the aspect of non-self, it is only made of hearing and thinking.

論曰：以世俗智觀一切法為非我時猶除自品，自品謂自體相應俱有法，境、有境別故。同一所緣故，相隣近故，非此智所緣。此智唯是欲色界攝，聞思所成非修所成，修所成慧地別緣故，若異此者應頓離染。已辯所緣。復應思擇，誰成就幾智耶？頌曰：

The treatise says: When one contemplates all dharmas as non-self with worldly knowledge, one still excludes its own class; its own class means the dharmas associated and co-existent with the knowledge itself, because the object and the subject differ. Because they have the same object, and because they are close to each other, they are not objects of this knowledge. This knowledge is included only in the desire and form realms, and is made of hearing and thinking, not made of cultivation; since wisdom made of cultivation takes objects ground by ground, if it were otherwise one would leave defilement all at once. Having explained the objects, we should further consider who accomplishes how many knowledges. The verse says:

異生聖見道，初念定成一，

Ordinary beings, and at the path of seeing of the noble, the first moment surely accomplishes one;

二定成三智，後四一一增，

the second surely accomplishes three; later four, each increasing by one;

修道定成七，離欲增他心，

in the path of cultivation one surely accomplishes seven; one who has detached from desire adds knowledge of others' minds;

無學鈍利根，定成九成十。

the no-more-learner of dull or sharp faculties surely accomplishes nine or ten.

論曰：諸異生位及聖見道第一剎那定成一智，謂世俗智。第二剎那定成三智，謂加法、苦。第四六十，十四剎那如次後後增類集滅道智。諸未增位成數如前，故修位中亦定成七。如是諸位，若已離欲各各增一，謂他心智，唯除異生生無色者。時解脫者定成九智，謂加盡智。不時解脫定成就十，謂增無生。於何位中頓修幾智？且於見道十五心中，頌曰：

The treatise says: Ordinary beings, and the noble in the path of seeing in the first instant, surely accomplish one knowledge, namely worldly knowledge. In the second instant they surely accomplish three, adding Dharma-knowledge and the knowledge of suffering. In the fourth, sixth, tenth and fourteenth instants, they successively add the subsequent knowledge, and the knowledges of origin, cessation and the path. In the stages where nothing is yet added, the numbers accomplished are as above, and so in the path of cultivation they surely accomplish seven. Among these stages, if one has already detached from desire, one adds one each, namely the knowledge of others' minds, except for ordinary beings born in the formless realm. One liberated at a particular time surely accomplishes nine knowledges, adding the knowledge of exhaustion. One not liberated at a particular time surely accomplishes ten, adding the knowledge of non-arising. In which stage does one cultivate how many knowledges all at once? Let us take first the fifteen moments of the path of seeing. The verse says:

見道忍智起，即彼未來修，

In the path of seeing, patience and knowledge arise, and that very one is cultivated in the future;

三類智兼修，現觀邊俗智，

the three subsequent knowledges are cultivated together; the worldly knowledge in observing the truths (is cultivated);

不生自下地，苦集四滅後，

it does not arise in its own lower ground; after suffering, origin, and the four of cessation,

自諦行相境，唯加行所得。

the aspect and object of its own truth are obtained only through preparatory practice.

論曰：見道位中隨起忍智，皆即彼類於未來修，然具修自諦諸行相念住。何緣見道唯同類修？先未曾得此種性故，對治所緣俱決定故。唯苦集滅三類智時，能兼修未來現觀邊俗智，於一一諦現觀後邊方能兼修故立斯號，由此餘位未能兼修。道類智時何不修此？俗智曾於道，無事現觀故。又必無於道，遍事現觀故，謂於苦集滅可遍知斷證，必無於道可能遍修。雖集滅邊未遍斷證，而於當位斷證已周。道則不然，種性多故。有言：此是見道眷屬，彼修道攝，故不能修。理非極成，不應為證。此世俗智是不生法，於一切時無容起故。若爾，何故說名為修？先未曾得今方得故。既不能起，得義何依？但由得故說名為得。由得故得曾所未聞，故所辯修理不成立。如古師說：修義可成。彼說云何？由聖道力修世俗智，於出觀後有勝緣諦俗智現前，得此起依故名得此，如得金礦名為得金。毘婆沙師不樂此義，隨依何地見道現前能修未來自地下地，謂依未至見道現前能修未來一地見道二地俗智，至依第四見道現前能修未來六地見道七地俗智。苦集邊修四念住攝，滅邊修者唯法念住，隨於何諦現觀邊修，即以此行相緣此諦為境，見道力得故。唯加行所得，智增故立智名，若並眷屬以欲四蘊色界五蘊為其自性。次於修道離染位中，頌曰：

The treatise says: In the stage of the path of seeing, the acceptances and knowledges that arise in succession are all cultivated in the future as of their own class, and yet one fully cultivates the mindfulness of the aspects of the practices of one's own truth. Why on the path of seeing is only the same class cultivated? Because one has not previously attained this kind of nature, and because the remedy and its object are fixed together. Only at the time of the knowledges of the classes of suffering, origin and cessation can one also cultivate in the future the worldly knowledge that is at the edge of direct realization, because it is only after the direct realization of each truth that one can additionally cultivate it, so the name is established thus; for this reason, other stages cannot additionally cultivate. Why is it not cultivated at the time of the knowledge of the class of the path? Because worldly knowledge has no object with respect to the path, as there is no direct realization of it. Also because there is certainly no direct realization of the full range of affairs with respect to the path, that is, regarding suffering, origin and cessation one can fully know, cut off and realize them, but regarding the path one can certainly not fully cultivate it. Although at the edge of origin and cessation one has not fully cut off and realized, yet in that stage the cutting off and realizing is complete. The path is not so, because its kinds are many. Some say: This belongs to the retinue of the path of seeing, and that is included in the path of cultivation, so it cannot be cultivated. The reasoning is not fully established and should not be taken as proof. This worldly knowledge is a dharma that does not arise, because at no time can it arise. If so, why is it called cultivation? Because it is gained now, having not been gained before. Since it cannot arise, on what is the meaning of 'gaining' based? It is called gaining only because of the acquisition. Because one acquires what one has not heard before, the reasoning of cultivation as explained is not established. As the ancient masters said: the meaning of cultivation can be established. What do they say? By the power of the noble path one cultivates worldly knowledge, and after emerging from contemplation, worldly knowledge with a superior condition of the truths appears, and because it arises on this basis it is called gaining it, just as gaining a gold mine is called gaining gold. The Vaibhasika masters did not like this meaning. Whatever ground the path of seeing is present on, one can cultivate in the future that ground and the lower grounds: that is, relying on the not-yet-arrived stage, when the path of seeing is present one can cultivate in the future the path of seeing of one ground and the worldly knowledge of two grounds; relying on the fourth, when the path of seeing is present one can cultivate in the future the path of seeing of six grounds and the worldly knowledge of seven grounds. Cultivation at the edge of suffering and origin is included in the four foundations of mindfulness, and that at the edge of cessation is only the foundation of mindfulness of dharmas. At the edge of whichever truth one directly realizes and cultivates, one takes that truth as object with that aspect, because it is obtained by the power of the path of seeing. What is obtained only through preparation is named knowledge because knowledge increases, and when taken together with its retinue the nature consists of the four aggregates of the desire realm and the five aggregates of the form realm. Next, in the stage of freeing oneself from defilement on the path of cultivation, the verse says:

修道初剎那，修六或七智，

On the first moment of the path of cultivation, one cultivates six or seven knowledges;

斷八地無間，及有欲餘道，

Cutting off the eight grounds, the uninterrupted paths and the others with desire-realm paths,

有頂八解脫，各修於七智，

The eight liberations of the peak of existence each cultivate seven knowledges;

上無間餘道，如次修六八。

Higher uninterrupted paths and the other paths cultivate, in order, six and eight.

論曰：修道初念，謂第十六道類智時現修二智。未離欲者未來修六，謂法及類苦集滅道。離欲修七，謂加他心，不修世俗，有頂治故。斷欲修斷九無間道八解脫道，俗四法智隨應現修。斷上七地諸無間道四類世俗滅道法智隨應現修。斷欲加行有欲勝進，俗四法類隨應現修。此上未來皆修七智，謂俗、法類苦集滅道。斷有頂地前八解脫，四類二法隨應現修，此於未來亦唯修七，然除世俗，加他心智。斷有頂地九無間道，四類二法隨應現修，未來修法類苦集滅道六。斷欲修斷第九解脫，俗四法智隨應現修。斷上七地諸解脫道，四類世俗滅道法智隨應現修。斷欲修斷第九勝進斷上八地諸加行道，俗四法類隨應現修。斷上七地有頂八品諸勝進道，俗四法類及他心智隨應現修。此上未來皆修八智，謂俗法類四諦他心。次辯離染得無學位。頌曰：

The treatise says: On the first thought of the path of cultivation, namely at the time of the sixteenth knowledge of the class of the path, two knowledges are presently cultivated. For one not yet freed from desire, six are cultivated in the future, namely the knowledges of dharma and class, suffering, origin, cessation and path. For one freed from desire, seven are cultivated, namely adding the knowledge of others' minds, but not worldly knowledge, because it is the remedy of the peak of existence. In cutting off the desire realm, the nine uninterrupted paths and eight paths of liberation, worldly knowledge, the four, and the knowledge of dharma are presently cultivated as appropriate. In cutting off the upper seven grounds, in the uninterrupted paths, the four class knowledges, worldly knowledge, cessation, path and the knowledge of dharma are presently cultivated as appropriate. In the preparation for cutting off desire and the path of further progress in the desire realm, worldly knowledge, the four, the knowledge of dharma and of class are presently cultivated as appropriate. In all of these, seven knowledges are cultivated in the future, namely worldly knowledge, the knowledge of dharma and class, suffering, origin, cessation and path. In the first eight liberations that cut off the ground of the peak of existence, the four class knowledges and the two dharma knowledges are presently cultivated as appropriate, and in the future also only seven are cultivated, but excluding worldly knowledge and adding the knowledge of others' minds. In the nine uninterrupted paths cutting off the ground of the peak of existence, the four class knowledges and two dharma knowledges are presently cultivated as appropriate, and in the future six are cultivated, namely dharma, class, suffering, origin, cessation and path. In the ninth liberation that cuts off the desire realm, worldly knowledge, the four and the dharma knowledge are presently cultivated as appropriate. In the liberation paths cutting off the upper seven grounds, the four class knowledges, worldly knowledge, cessation, path and the knowledge of dharma are presently cultivated as appropriate. In the ninth path of further progress cutting off the desire realm, and in the preparatory paths cutting off the upper eight grounds, worldly knowledge, the four and the knowledges of dharma and class are presently cultivated as appropriate. In the paths of further progress cutting off the eight grades of the peak of existence in the upper seven grounds, worldly knowledge, the four, the knowledge of dharma and class and the knowledge of others' minds are presently cultivated as appropriate. In all of these, eight knowledges are cultivated in the future, namely worldly, dharma, class, the four truths and the knowledge of others' minds. Next, the attainment of the stage beyond training by freeing oneself from defilement. The verse says:

無學初剎那，修九或修十，

On the first moment beyond training, one cultivates nine or ten,

鈍利根別故，勝進道亦然。

Because of dull and sharp faculties; the path of further progress is likewise.

論曰：無學初念，謂斷有頂第九解脫，苦集類盡隨應現修，緣有頂故。勝進九十隨應現修，未來隨應修九修十，謂鈍根者唯除無生，利根亦修無生智故。次辯餘位修智多少。頌曰：

The treatise says: On the first thought beyond training, namely the ninth liberation cutting off the peak of existence, the knowledge of the class of suffering and origin and the knowledge of extinction are presently cultivated as appropriate, because they take the peak of existence as object. For further progress, nine or ten are presently cultivated as appropriate, and in the future nine or ten are cultivated as appropriate, that is, the dull-faculty person excludes only the knowledge of non-arising, while the sharp-faculty person also cultivates the knowledge of non-arising. Next, how many knowledges are cultivated in the other stages? The verse says:

練根無間道，學六無學七，

In the uninterrupted paths of refining the faculties, the learner cultivates six, the one beyond training seven,

餘學六七八，應八九一切，

In the other paths, the learner cultivates six, seven or eight; for one beyond training eight, nine, or all,

雜修通無間，學七應八九，

In mixed cultivation, through the uninterrupted paths, the learner cultivates seven, and the one beyond training eight or nine,

餘道學修八，應九或一切。

In the other paths the learner cultivates eight, and the one beyond training nine or all.

聖起餘功德，及異生諸位，

When the noble one arouses other merits, and in the various stages of ordinary beings,

所修智多少，皆如理應思。

The number of knowledges cultivated should be considered according to reason.

論曰：學位練根諸無間道，四法類智隨應現修，未來修六，四諦法類似見道故不修世俗，能斷障故不修他心。諸解脫道四法類智隨應現修，未離欲者未來修六，四諦法類。已離欲者未來修七，謂加他心。有餘師言：解脫道位亦修世俗，諸加行道，俗四法類隨應現修。未離欲者未來修七，已離欲八，謂加他心。諸勝進道，若未離欲，俗四法類隨應現修，未來亦七。若已離欲，俗四法類及他心智隨應現修，未來亦八。無學練根，諸無間道，四類二法隨應現修，未來修七。四諦法類盡，不修世俗，如治有頂故。五前八解脫，四類二法隨應現修，未來修八，四諦法類、他心及盡。四第九解脫，苦集類盡隨應現修，未來修九。最後解脫，苦集類盡隨應現修，未來修十。諸加行道現修如學，未來修九。諸勝進道，鈍者九智隨應現修，未來亦九。利者十智隨應現修，未來亦十。學位雜修諸無間道，四法類俗隨應現修，未來修七。諸解脫道唯四法類，加行增俗。諸勝進道，又加他心隨應現修，未來皆八。無學雜修諸無間道，現修如學，未來所修鈍八利九。諸解脫道唯四法類，加行增俗隨應現修，未來所修鈍九利十。諸勝進道與練根同。學位修通五無間道，現修俗智，未來修七，宿住神境、二解脫道。五加行道，現修俗智，他心、解脫、法類道、俗及他心智。一切勝進並苦集滅隨應現修，此上未來皆修八智。無學修通五無間道，現修如學，未來所修鈍八利九。解脫加行現修如學，未來所修鈍九利十。諸勝進道與練根同，天眼天耳、二解脫道，無記性故不名為修。聖起所餘四無量等修所成攝有漏德時，現在皆修一世俗智。有學未來，未離欲七、已離欲八。無學未來，鈍九利十，除微微心，此於未來唯修俗故。若起所餘無漏功德靜慮攝者，四法類智隨應現修。無色攝者，唯四類智隨應現修，未來所修同前有漏。

The treatise says: In the stage of the learner, in the uninterrupted paths of refining the faculties, the four, the knowledges of dharma and class are presently cultivated as appropriate, and six are cultivated in the future, namely the four truths and the knowledges of dharma and class; worldly knowledge is not cultivated because they resemble the path of seeing, and the knowledge of others' minds is not cultivated because they cut off obstructions. In the paths of liberation, the four, the knowledges of dharma and class are presently cultivated as appropriate; for one not yet free from desire, six are cultivated in the future, the four truths and the knowledges of dharma and class; for one already free from desire, seven are cultivated in the future, adding the knowledge of others' minds. Some other teachers say that in the stage of the path of liberation worldly knowledge is also cultivated. In the preparatory paths, worldly knowledge, the four, the knowledges of dharma and class are presently cultivated as appropriate. For one not yet free from desire, seven are cultivated in the future; for one already free from desire, eight, adding the knowledge of others' minds. In the paths of further progress, for one not yet free from desire, worldly knowledge, the four and the knowledges of dharma and class are presently cultivated as appropriate, and seven are cultivated in the future. For one already free from desire, worldly knowledge, the four, the knowledges of dharma and class and the knowledge of others' minds are presently cultivated as appropriate, and eight in the future. For one beyond training who is refining the faculties, in the uninterrupted paths the four class knowledges and two dharma knowledges are presently cultivated as appropriate, and seven are cultivated in the future: the four truths, the knowledges of dharma and class and extinction; worldly knowledge is not cultivated, since they are remedies for the peak of existence. In the first eight liberations of the five, the four class knowledges and two dharma knowledges are presently cultivated as appropriate, and eight are cultivated in the future: the four truths, the knowledges of dharma and class, the knowledge of others' minds and extinction. In the ninth liberation of the four, the knowledge of the class of suffering and origin and extinction are presently cultivated as appropriate, and nine in the future. In the last liberation, the class of suffering and origin and extinction are presently cultivated as appropriate, and ten in the future. In the preparatory paths, present cultivation is as for the learner, and nine are cultivated in the future. In the paths of further progress, for the dull, nine knowledges are presently cultivated as appropriate, and nine in the future; for the sharp, ten knowledges are presently cultivated as appropriate, and ten in the future. In the stage of the learner, in the uninterrupted paths of mixed cultivation, the four, the knowledges of dharma, class and worldly knowledge are presently cultivated as appropriate, and seven in the future. The paths of liberation are only the four and the knowledges of dharma and class, with worldly knowledge added in preparation. In the paths of further progress, adding the knowledge of others' minds, they are presently cultivated as appropriate, and in the future all eight. For one beyond training in mixed cultivation, in the uninterrupted paths present cultivation is as for the learner, and in the future the dull cultivate eight and the sharp nine. The paths of liberation are only the four and the knowledges of dharma and class, with worldly knowledge added in preparation and presently cultivated as appropriate, and in the future the dull cultivate nine and the sharp ten. The paths of further progress are the same as in refining the faculties. For the learner cultivating the five uninterrupted paths of the supernormal powers, worldly knowledge is presently cultivated and seven in the future; the recollection of past lives, the miraculous powers, and the two paths of liberation. In the five preparatory paths, worldly knowledge is presently cultivated, and the knowledge of others' minds, liberation, the path of dharma and class, and worldly and others' minds knowledges. All paths of further progress together with suffering, origin and cessation are presently cultivated as appropriate, and in the future eight knowledges are all cultivated. For one beyond training cultivating the five uninterrupted paths of the supernormal powers, present cultivation is as for the learner, and in the future the dull cultivate eight and the sharp nine. In the preparatory paths for liberation, present cultivation is as for the learner, and in the future the dull cultivate nine and the sharp ten. The paths of further progress are the same as in refining the faculties. The divine eye and divine ear and the two paths of liberation are not called cultivation because they are of indeterminate nature. When a noble one arouses the other worldly virtues included in cultivation, such as the four immeasurables, in the present all cultivate one worldly knowledge. For the learner, in the future seven if not yet free from desire and eight if free from desire. For one beyond training, in the future nine for the dull and ten for the sharp, excepting the minute minds, which cultivate in the future only the worldly. If one arouses other undefiled virtues included in the meditations, the four, the knowledges of dharma and class are presently cultivated as appropriate. For those included in the formless attainments, only the four class knowledges are presently cultivated as appropriate, and what is cultivated in the future is the same as the defiled one above.

異生離染，現修世俗斷欲三定。第九解脫及依根本四靜慮定起勝進道離染加行，未來修二，謂加他心，所餘未來唯修世俗。修五通時，諸加行道二解脫道現修俗智，一解脫道現俗他心。諸勝進道二隨應現，未來一切皆修二種。五無間道現未唯俗。依本靜慮修餘功德皆現修俗，未來修二。唯順決擇分必不修他心，以是見道近眷屬故。依餘地定修餘功德，皆唯世俗現未來修。諸未來修為修幾地？諸所起得皆是修耶？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) For ordinary beings who free themselves from defilement, in the desire-realm in the three concentrations the worldly is presently cultivated. For the ninth liberation, and the preparation for freeing oneself from defilement that arises from the path of further progress relying on the four root meditations, two are cultivated in the future, adding the knowledge of others' minds; otherwise only worldly knowledge is cultivated in the future. When cultivating the five supernormal powers, in the preparatory paths and the two paths of liberation, worldly knowledge is presently cultivated, and in one path of liberation worldly knowledge and others' minds are present. In the paths of further progress the two are present as appropriate, and in the future all cultivate two kinds. In the five uninterrupted paths only the worldly is present and future. Relying on the root meditations to cultivate other merits, all presently cultivate the worldly and in the future two. Only in the part conducive to penetration is the knowledge of others' minds certainly not cultivated, because it is a near retinue of the path of seeing. Relying on other grounds in concentration to cultivate other merits, all cultivate only the worldly, present and future. When one cultivates in the future, how many grounds are cultivated? Is everything that arises an acquisition by cultivation? The verse says:

諸道依得此，修此地有漏，

The paths, relying on this attainment, cultivate the defiled of this ground,

為離得起此，修此下無漏。

To free oneself or on attaining this, one cultivates the undefiled of this and below.

唯初盡遍修，九地有漏德，

Only on the first knowledge of extinction does one fully cultivate the defiled virtues of the nine grounds;

生上不修下，曾所得非修。

Born above does not cultivate below; what was obtained before is not cultivation.

論曰：諸道依此地及得此地時，能修未來此地有漏。聖為離此地及得此地時，並此地中諸道現起，皆能修此及下無漏。為離此言通二四道，唯初盡智現在前時，力能遍修九地有漏，不淨觀等無量功德能縛眾惑斷無餘故，如能縛斷所縛氣通。又彼自心今登王位，一切善法起得來朝。譬如大王登祚灑頂，一切境土皆來朝貢。然此生上必不修下。初盡智言顯離有頂及五練根位第九解脫道。諸所言修唯先未得令起今得是能所修，謂若先時未得今得，用功得者方是所修。若法先時曾得棄捨，今雖還得而非所修，非設劬勞而證得故。若先未得用功現前能修未來，勢力勝故。曾得而起不修未來，非多功起勢力劣故。為唯約得說名為修？不爾。云何？修有四種：一得修、二習修、三對治修、四除遣修。如是四修依何法立？頌曰：

The treatise says: The paths, relying on this ground and at the time of attaining this ground, can cultivate in the future the defiled of this ground. The noble one, to free oneself from this ground and at the time of attaining this ground, together with the paths present in this ground, can cultivate the undefiled of this and the lower. The statement 'to free oneself from this' covers two or four paths. Only when the first knowledge of extinction is present can one, by its power, fully cultivate the defiled virtues of the nine grounds, because the immeasurable merits such as the meditation on impurity can bind the many defilements and cut them off without remainder, just as one who can bind and cut what is bound has an unobstructed breath. Also, that mind of its own has now ascended the royal seat, and all good dharmas arise and come to court. It is like a great king ascending the throne and being anointed, and all lands come with tribute. However, one born in an upper ground certainly does not cultivate the lower. The words 'first knowledge of extinction' show leaving the peak of existence and the ninth path of liberation in the five stages of refining the faculties. What is called cultivation is that which one had not obtained before but now obtains by arousing; the cultivation is of what is newly acquired. If a dharma was obtained before and then abandoned, even if it is obtained again it is not cultivation, because it is not realized through effort. If one had not obtained it before, effort that makes it present can cultivate it in the future, because its power is superior. If one had obtained it before, arousing it does not cultivate it in the future, because it does not arise with much effort and its power is inferior. Is cultivation spoken of only by reference to acquisition? Not so. How? There are four kinds of cultivation: first, cultivation as acquiring; second, cultivation as practicing; third, cultivation as counteracting; fourth, cultivation as eliminating. On what dharmas are these four kinds of cultivation established? The verse says:

立得修習修，依善有為法，

Cultivation as acquiring and as practicing are established on good conditioned dharmas,

依諸有漏法，立治修遣修。

Cultivation as counteracting and as eliminating are established on defiled dharmas.

論曰：得、習二修依有為善未來唯得，現具二修，治遣二修依有漏法，故有漏善具足四修。無漏有為餘有漏法，如次是具前後二修。外國諸師說修有六，於前四上加防、觀修，防護諸根、觀察身故。如契經說：云何修根？謂於六根善防善護，乃至廣說。又契經說：云何修身？謂於自身觀髮毛爪，乃至廣說。迦濕彌羅國諸論師言：防觀二修即治遣修攝。

The treatise says: The two cultivations of acquiring and practicing are on conditioned good dharmas; in the future only acquiring, in the present both. The two of counteracting and eliminating are on defiled dharmas, so defiled good has all four cultivations. For undefiled conditioned dharmas and other defiled dharmas, they have, in order, the former two and the latter two. Foreign masters say there are six cultivations, adding to the four above the cultivation of guarding and of contemplation, because they guard the faculties and contemplate the body. As the sutra says: How does one cultivate the faculties? One guards and protects the six faculties well, and so on at length. The sutra also says: How does one cultivate the body? One contemplates the hair, nails and so on of one's own body, at length. The masters of Kashmir say that the two cultivations of guarding and contemplation are included in counteracting and eliminating.

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by the Tripitaka Master Xuanzang by imperial command

分別智品第七之二

Chapter 7, Analysis of Knowledge, Part 2

如是已辯諸智差別，智所成德今當顯示，於中先辯佛不共德。且初成佛盡智位修不共佛法有十八種。何謂十八？頌曰：

Having thus explained the differences among knowledges, the virtues accomplished by knowledge should now be shown, and among them first the unshared qualities of the Buddha. At the stage of the knowledge of extinction on first becoming a Buddha, one cultivates the unshared qualities of the Buddha, of which there are eighteen. What are the eighteen? The verse says:

十八不共法，謂佛十力等。

The eighteen unshared qualities are the ten powers of the Buddha and so on.

論曰：佛十力、四無畏、三念住及大悲，如是合名為十八不共法。唯於諸佛盡智時修，餘聖所無，故名不共。且佛十力相別云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The ten powers of the Buddha, the four fearlessnesses, the three foundations of mindfulness and great compassion together are called the eighteen unshared qualities. They are cultivated only by the Buddhas at the time of the knowledge of extinction, and other noble ones do not have them, so they are called unshared. First, what are the distinctions of the ten powers of the Buddha? The verse says:

力處非處十，業八除滅道，

The powers: the possible and impossible, ten; karma, eight, excluding cessation and path,

定根解界九，遍趣九或十，

Concentration, faculties, liberation, realms, nine; the all-going, nine or ten,

宿住死生俗，盡六或十智，

Past lives, death and rebirth, worldly; extinction, six or ten knowledges;

宿住死生智，依靜慮餘通，

Past lives, death and rebirth rely on the meditations, the others on all;

贍部男佛身，於境無礙故。

In Jambudvipa, in a male Buddha's body, because they are unobstructed regarding their objects.

論曰：佛十力者，一處非處智力，具以如來十智為性；二業異熟智力，八智為性，謂除滅道。三靜慮解脫等持等至智力，四根上下智力，五種種勝解智力，六種種界智力，如是四力皆九智性，謂除滅智。七遍趣行智力，或聲顯此義有二途，若謂但緣能趣為境九智除滅，若謂亦緣所趣為境十智為性。八宿住隨念智力，九死生智力，如是二力皆俗智性。十漏盡智力，或聲亦顯義有二途，若謂但緣漏盡為境六智，除道、苦、集、他心。若謂漏盡身中所得，十智為性。已辯自性。依地別者，第八第九依四靜慮，餘八通依十一地起，欲、四靜慮、未至、中間並四無色，名十一地。已辯依地。依身別者，皆依贍部男子佛身。已辯依身。何故名力？以於一切所知境中智無礙轉，故名為力。由此十力唯依佛身，唯佛已除諸惑習氣於一切境隨欲能知，餘此相違故不名力。如舍利子捨求度人、不能觀知鷹所逐鴿前後二際生多少等。如是諸佛遍於所知心力無邊。云何身力？頌曰：

The treatise says: The ten powers of the Buddha are as follows. First, the power of knowing the possible and the impossible, which in full has as its nature the ten knowledges of the Tathagata. Second, the power of knowing the ripening of karma, which has eight knowledges as its nature, excluding cessation and path. Third, the power of knowing the meditations, liberations, concentrations and attainments; fourth, the power of knowing the superior and inferior faculties; fifth, the power of knowing the various inclinations; sixth, the power of knowing the various realms; these four powers all have nine knowledges as their nature, excluding the knowledge of cessation. Seventh, the power of knowing the all-going paths; the words show that this has two ways: if it takes only the paths that lead as object, then nine knowledges excluding cessation; if it also takes what is led to as object, then ten knowledges are its nature. Eighth, the power of recollecting past lives; ninth, the power of knowing death and rebirth; these two powers are both of the nature of worldly knowledge. Tenth, the power of the knowledge of the exhaustion of the outflows; the words also show two ways: if it takes only the exhaustion of outflows as object, six knowledges, excluding path, suffering, origin and the knowledge of others' minds; if it is what is obtained in the body in which the outflows are exhausted, ten knowledges are its nature. The nature has been explained. As to differences of ground, the eighth and ninth rely on the four meditations, and the other eight arise relying on eleven grounds, namely the desire realm, the four meditations, the not-yet-arrived, the intermediate, and the four formless, called the eleven grounds. The grounds have been explained. As to differences of body, all rely on the body of a male Buddha in Jambudvipa. The body has been explained. Why are they called powers? Because the knowledge proceeds unobstructed toward all objects of knowledge, so it is called power. For this reason the ten powers rely only on the Buddha's body, because only the Buddha has removed all defilements and their habitual traces and can know all objects as he wishes, while others are the opposite and so are not called powers. For example, Sariputra gave up the search to deliver people and could not observe and know how many births there were before and after the dove chased by the hawk. Thus the Buddhas' mental power regarding all that can be known is boundless. What is the bodily power? The verse says:

身那羅延力，或節節皆然，

The body has the strength of Narayana, or every joint is thus,

象等七十增，此觸處為性。

Elephants and the rest increase by seventy; this has touch as its nature.

論曰：佛生身力等那羅延。有餘師言：佛身支節一一皆具那羅延力。大德法救說：諸如來身力無邊，猶如心力。若異此者，則諸佛身應不能持無邊心力。大覺獨覺及轉輪王支節相連，如其次第，似龍蟠結連鎖相鈎，故三相望力有勝劣。那羅延力其量云何？十十倍增象等七力，謂凡象、香象、摩訶諾健那、缽羅塞建提、伐浪伽、遮怒羅、那羅延，後後力增前前十倍。有說：前六十十倍增，敵那羅延半身之力，此力一倍成那羅延。於所說中唯多應理。如是身力觸處為性，謂所觸中大種差別。有說：是造觸離七外別有。佛四無畏相別云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The strength of the Buddha's physical body is equal to that of Narayana (the name of a celestial strongman). Some other teachers say: Every joint of the Buddha's body has the strength of Narayana. The great virtuous Dharmatrata said: The strength of the Tathagatas' bodies is boundless, like the power of the mind. If it were otherwise, the Buddhas' bodies would not be able to support the boundless power of the mind. The joints of the Great Awakened One, of the solitary Buddha, and of the wheel-turning king are connected, in order, like dragons coiled together, or like chains linked by hooks, so the three differ in superiority and inferiority of strength. What is the measure of Narayana's strength? Ten times each, seven powers beginning with the elephant increase: the ordinary elephant, the fragrant elephant, Mahanagna, Prasaskandin, Varanga, Canura, and Narayana, each succeeding one ten times as strong as the one before. Some say: The first six increase ten times each, and one equals half the strength of Narayana's body, and one more times that becomes Narayana's. Among what has been said, only the more is reasonable. This bodily power has touch as its nature, namely a distinct kind of great element within what is touched. Some say it is separate from the seven objects of touch derived from the elements. What are the distinctions of the Buddha's four fearlessnesses? The verse says:

四無畏如次，初十二七力。

The four fearlessnesses are, in order, like the first, tenth, second and seventh powers.

論曰：佛四無畏，如經廣說：一正等覺無畏，十智為性，猶如初力。二漏永盡無畏，六十智性，如第十力。三說障法無畏，八智為性，如第二力。四說出道無畏，九十智性，如第七力。如何於智立無畏名？此無畏名目無怯懼，由有智故不怯懼他，故無畏名目諸智體。理實無畏是智所成，不應說言體即是智。佛三念住相別云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The four fearlessnesses of the Buddha, as the sutra says at length, are: first, fearlessness of perfect awakening, which has ten knowledges as its nature, like the first power. Second, fearlessness of the permanent exhaustion of outflows, with six or ten knowledges, like the tenth power. Third, fearlessness in teaching what obstructs, with eight knowledges as its nature, like the second power. Fourth, fearlessness in teaching the path to liberation, with nine or ten knowledges, like the seventh power. Why is the name fearlessness given to knowledge? This name refers to being without timidity: because one has knowledge one is not timid before others, so the name fearlessness refers to the substance of the various knowledges. In truth fearlessness is accomplished by knowledge, and one should not say that its substance is knowledge. What are the distinctions of the Buddha's three foundations of mindfulness? The verse says:

三念住念慧，緣順違俱境。

The three foundations of mindfulness are mindfulness and wisdom, taking as object the agreeable, disagreeable and both.

論曰：佛三念住，如經廣說。諸弟子眾一向恭敬能正受行，如來緣之不生歡喜，捨而安住正念正知，是謂如來第一念住。諸弟子眾唯不恭敬不正受行，如來緣之不生憂慼，捨而安住正念正知，是謂如來第二念住。諸弟子眾一類恭敬能正受行，一類不敬不正受行，如來緣之不生歡慼，捨而安住正念正知，是謂如來第三念住。此三皆用念慧為體。諸大聲聞亦於弟子順違俱境離歡慼俱，此何名為不共佛法？唯佛於此並習斷故。或諸弟子隨屬如來有順違俱應甚歡慼，佛能不起可謂希奇。非屬諸聲聞不起非奇特，故唯在佛得不共名。諸佛大悲云何相別？頌曰：

The treatise says: The Buddha's three foundations of mindfulness, as the sutra says at length: when the disciples are all respectful and able to receive and practice correctly, the Tathagata, taking them as object, does not give rise to delight, but abandons it and abides in right mindfulness and right awareness; this is the Tathagata's first foundation of mindfulness. When the disciples are all disrespectful and do not receive and practice correctly, the Tathagata, taking them as object, does not give rise to distress, but abandons it and abides in right mindfulness and right awareness; this is the Tathagata's second foundation of mindfulness. When some disciples are respectful and able to receive and practice correctly and others are disrespectful and do not, the Tathagata, taking them as object, gives rise to neither delight nor distress, but abandons both and abides in right mindfulness and right awareness; this is the Tathagata's third foundation of mindfulness. All three have mindfulness and wisdom as their substance. The great disciples also are free of delight and distress toward the agreeable, disagreeable and mixed among their disciples, so why are these called unshared qualities of the Buddha? Because only the Buddha has also cut off the habits of these. Or, among his disciples, whether they are agreeable or disagreeable, it would be natural to feel great delight or distress, and that the Buddha does not give rise to it may be called rare. For the disciples of the hearers not to give rise to it is not remarkable, so only the Buddha obtains the name unshared. How do the Buddhas' great compassion differ? The verse says:

大悲唯俗智，資糧行相境，

Great compassion is only worldly knowledge, in its provisions, aspect and object,

平等上品故，異悲由八因。

In equality and in the highest grade; it differs from compassion by eight causes.

論曰：如來大悲俗智為性，若異此者則不能緣一切有情，亦不能作三苦行相，如共有悲。此大悲名依何義立？依五義故此立大名：一由資糧故大，謂大福德智慧資糧所成辦故。二由行相故大，謂此力能於三苦境作行相故。三由所緣故大，謂此總以三界有情為所緣故。四由平等故大，謂此等於一切有情作利樂故。五由上品故大，謂最上品更無餘悲能齊此故。此與悲異由八種因：一由自性，無痴無瞋自性異故。二由行相，三苦一苦行相異故。三由所緣，三界一界所緣異故。四由依地，第四靜慮通餘異故。五由依身，唯佛通餘身有異故。六由證得，離有頂欲證得異故。七由救濟，事成希望救濟異故。八由哀愍，平等不等哀愍異故。已辯佛德異餘有情。諸佛相望法皆等不？頌曰：

The treatise says: The Tathagata's great compassion has worldly knowledge as its nature; if it were otherwise it could not take all sentient beings as object and could not make the aspect of the three kinds of suffering, as in shared compassion. On what meaning is the name 'great compassion' established? On five meanings the name 'great' is established: first, great through provisions, because it is accomplished through the great provisions of merit and wisdom. Second, great through aspect, because its power can make the aspect of the objects of the three sufferings. Third, great through object, because it takes sentient beings of the three realms in general as its object. Fourth, great through equality, because it benefits and gives joy equally to all sentient beings. Fifth, great through the highest grade, because it is the highest grade and no other compassion can equal it. It differs from compassion by eight causes: first, by nature, because the natures of non-delusion and non-hatred differ. Second, by aspect, because the aspect of three sufferings and one suffering differs. Third, by object, because the objects of three realms and one realm differ. Fourth, by ground, because it is in the fourth meditation and common to others differs. Fifth, by body, because only the Buddha is shared with others and the bodies differ. Sixth, by attainment, because it differs in the attainment of freedom from desire at the peak of existence. Seventh, by deliverance, because it differs in the hope of delivering that is fulfilled. Eighth, by pity, because it differs in equal and unequal pity. The distinction of the Buddha's virtues from those of other sentient beings has been explained. Are the dharmas of all the Buddhas equal in relation to one another? The verse says:

由資糧法身，利他佛相似，

Through provisions, the Dharma body and benefit to others the Buddhas are alike,

壽種姓量等，諸佛有差別。

But in life span, lineage, size and the like the Buddhas differ.

論曰：由三事故諸佛皆等，一由資糧等圓滿故、二由法身等成辦故、三由利他等究竟故。由壽種姓身量等殊，諸佛相望容有差別。壽異謂佛壽有短長，種異謂佛生剎帝利、婆羅門種，姓異謂佛姓喬答摩、迦葉波等。量異謂佛身有小大。等言顯諸佛法住久近等。如是有異，由出世時所化有情機宜別故。諸有智者思惟如來三種圓德深生愛敬。其三者何？一因圓德、二果圓德、三恩圓德。初因圓德復有四種：一無餘修，福德智慧二種資糧修無遺故。二長時修，經三大劫阿僧企耶修無倦故。三無間修，精勤勇猛剎那剎那修無廢故。四尊重修，恭敬所學無所顧惜修無慢故。次果圓德亦有四種：一智圓德、二斷圓德、三威勢圓德、四色身圓德。智圓德有四種：一、無師智；二、一切智；三、一切種智；四、無功用智。斷圓德有四種：一、一切煩惱斷；二、一切定障斷；三、畢竟斷；四、並習斷。威勢圓德有四種：一於外境化變住持自在威勢、二於壽量若促若延自在威勢、三於空障極遠速行小大相入自在威勢、四令世間種種本性法爾轉勝希奇威勢。威勢圓德復有四種：一難化必能化、二答難必決疑、三立教必出離、四惡黨必能伏。色身圓德有四種：一具眾相；二具隨好；三具大力；四內身骨堅越金剛，外發神光踰百千日。後恩圓德亦有四種，謂令永解脫三惡趣生死，或能安置善趣三乘。總說如來圓德如是，若別分析則有無邊，唯佛世尊能知能說，要留命行經多大劫阿僧企耶說乃可盡。如是則顯佛世尊身具有無邊殊勝奇特因果恩德如大寶山。有諸愚夫自乏眾德，雖聞如是佛功德山及所說法不能信重。諸有智者聞說如斯生信重心徹於骨髓，彼由一念極信重心轉滅無邊不定惡業，攝受殊勝人天涅槃，故說如來出現於世，為諸智者無上福田，依之引生不空可愛殊勝速疾究竟果故。如薄伽梵自說頌言：

The treatise says: For three reasons the Buddhas are all equal: first, because the provisions and the like are perfect; second, because the Dharma body and the like are accomplished; third, because benefiting others and the like are complete. Because of differences in life span, lineage, bodily size and the like, the Buddhas may differ from one another. Difference in life span means the Buddha's life may be short or long; difference in lineage means a Buddha may be born into the Kshatriya or Brahmin caste; difference in clan means a Buddha's clan may be Gautama, Kasyapa and so on. Difference in size means the Buddha's body may be small or large. The word 'and the like' shows that the Dharma of Buddhas remains for longer or shorter periods and so on. These differences exist because of the differences in the capacities of the beings to be taught at the time of their appearance. The wise reflect on the three perfect virtues of the Tathagata and give rise to deep love and respect. What are the three? First, the perfect virtue of cause; second, the perfect virtue of result; third, the perfect virtue of kindness. First, the perfect virtue of cause again has four kinds: first, cultivation without remainder, because the two provisions of merit and wisdom are cultivated without omission. Second, long cultivation, because over three great asamkhyeya eons one cultivates without weariness. Third, uninterrupted cultivation, because with diligence and courage one cultivates moment after moment without lapse. Fourth, respectful cultivation, because one reveres what one studies and cultivates without arrogance or reserve. Next, the perfect virtue of result also has four kinds: first, perfect virtue of wisdom; second, perfect virtue of cutting off; third, perfect virtue of power; fourth, perfect virtue of the physical body. The perfect virtue of wisdom has four kinds: first, wisdom without a teacher; second, omniscience; third, knowledge of all aspects; fourth, effortless wisdom. The perfect virtue of cutting off has four kinds: first, cutting off all afflictions; second, cutting off all obstructions to concentration; third, ultimate cutting off; fourth, cutting off along with habitual traces. The perfect virtue of power has four kinds: first, the power of sovereignty in transforming and maintaining external objects; second, the power of sovereignty in shortening or prolonging the life span; third, the power of sovereignty in traveling swiftly through obstructed space, entering the small into the great and the great into the small; fourth, the power to make the various natures of the world naturally more excellent and wonderful. The perfect virtue of power again has four kinds: first, one hard to convert is certainly converted; second, in answering questions one certainly resolves doubts; third, in establishing the teaching one certainly leads to liberation; fourth, evil parties are certainly subdued. The perfect virtue of the physical body has four kinds: first, possessing the many marks; second, possessing the secondary marks; third, possessing great strength; fourth, the inner body's bones are firmer than diamond and the outer radiance surpasses a hundred thousand suns. The last, the perfect virtue of kindness, also has four kinds, namely causing beings to be freed forever from birth and death in the three evil destinies, or to be placed in good destinies and the three vehicles. In general the perfect virtues of the Tathagata are thus, but when analyzed separately they are boundless, and only the Buddha, the World-Honored One, can know and speak them; he would have to remain alive and speak for many great asamkhyeya eons before it could be exhausted. This shows that the Buddha, the World-Honored One, has in his body boundless, extraordinary and wonderful virtues of cause, result and kindness, like a great mountain of jewels. Some foolish people, lacking virtues themselves, even on hearing of such a mountain of the Buddha's merits and the Dharma he taught, cannot believe or revere it. The wise, hearing it spoken, give rise to a mind of faith and reverence that penetrates to the marrow; by a single thought of extreme faith and reverence they extinguish boundless unfixed evil karma and gather superior births among humans and gods, and nirvana. So it is said that the Tathagata's appearance in the world is the supreme field of merit for the wise, by relying on which they produce lovely, excellent, swift and final results that are not in vain. As the Bhagavan himself said in a verse:

若於佛福田，能殖少分善，

If, in the field of merit of the Buddha, one can plant even a small part of good,

初獲勝善趣，後必得涅槃。

One first obtains a superior good destiny and later will surely attain nirvana.

已說如來不共功德，共功德今當辯。頌曰：

The unshared merits of the Tathagata have been explained; the shared merits should now be discussed. The verse says:

復有餘佛法，共餘聖異生，

There are also other qualities of the Buddha, shared with other noble ones and ordinary beings,

謂無諍願智，無礙解等德。

Namely non-contention, knowledge by vow, the unobstructed analytical knowledges, and the like.

論曰：世尊復有無量功德，與餘聖者及異生共，謂無諍、願智、無礙解、通、靜慮、無色等至等持、無量、解脫、勝處、遍處等，隨其所應。謂前三門唯共餘聖，通靜慮等亦共異生。前三門中且辯無諍。頌曰：

The treatise says: The World-Honored One also has immeasurable other merits shared with other noble ones and with ordinary beings, namely non-contention, knowledge by vow, the unobstructed analytical knowledges, the supernormal powers, the meditations, the formless attainments, concentrations, the immeasurables, the liberations, the spheres of mastery, the spheres of totality and so on, as appropriate. That is, the first three gates are shared only with other noble ones, while the supernormal powers, meditations and the rest are shared also with ordinary beings. Among the first three gates, first non-contention is explained. The verse says:

無諍世俗智，後靜慮不動，

Non-contention is worldly knowledge, relying on the last meditation, immovable,

三洲緣未生，欲界有事惑。

In three continents, taking as object the unborn, the desire-realm afflictions that have an object.

論曰：言無諍者，謂阿羅漢觀有情苦由煩惱生，自知己身福田中勝，恐他煩惱復緣己生，故思引發如是相智，由此方便令他有情不緣己身生貪瞋等。此行能息諸有情類煩惱諍故得無諍名。此行但以俗智為性，第四靜慮為其所依，樂通行中最為勝故。不動應果能起非餘，餘尚不能自防起惑，況能止息他身煩惱。此唯依止三洲人身，緣欲未來有事煩惱，勿他煩惱緣己生故。諸無事惑不可遮防，內起隨應總緣境故。辯無諍已，次辯願智。頌曰：

The treatise says: As for what is called non-contention, an arhat observes that the suffering of beings arises from afflictions, and knowing that he himself is supreme among fields of merit, fears that others' afflictions may again arise taking himself as object. So he thinks and brings forth a knowledge of this aspect, and by this means causes other beings not to give rise to greed, hatred and the like with himself as object. This practice can stop the quarrels of afflictions among beings, so it obtains the name non-contention. This practice has worldly knowledge as its nature and the fourth meditation as its support, because among the paths of ease it is the most excellent. An immovable arhat can give rise to it and no others can, since others cannot even guard themselves from giving rise to delusion, how much less stop the afflictions of others' bodies. It relies only on the human body of the three continents, and takes as object the future afflictions of the desire realm that have an object, lest others' afflictions arise taking oneself as object. Afflictions that have no object cannot be blocked, and arise within as appropriate, taking everything as object. Having explained non-contention, next knowledge by vow is explained. The verse says:

願智能遍緣，餘如無諍說。

Knowledge by vow can take all as object; the rest is as said for non-contention.

論曰：以願為先引妙智起如願而了，故名願智。此智自性地種性身與無諍同，但所緣別，以一切法為所緣故。毘婆沙者作如是言：願智不能證知無色，觀彼因行及彼等流差別故，知如田夫類。諸有欲起此願智時，先發誠願求知彼境，便入邊際第四靜慮以為加行，從此無間隨所入定勢力勝劣，如先願力引正智起，於所求境皆如實知。已辯願智。無礙解者，頌曰：

The treatise says: Because a wonderful knowledge arises led by a vow and knows as vowed, it is called knowledge by vow. The nature, ground, lineage and body of this knowledge are the same as for non-contention, but the object differs, because it takes all dharmas as object. The Vaibhasikas say: Knowledge by vow cannot realize and know the formless realm, because it observes its causes and practices and differences in outflows, and knows as a farmer would. When one wishes to arouse this knowledge by vow, one first makes a sincere vow to know that object and then enters the fourth meditation at its limit as preparation; immediately thereafter, according to the superiority or inferiority of the power of the concentration entered, as led by the earlier power of the vow a correct knowledge arises and one knows truly all that one sought. Knowledge by vow has been explained. The unobstructed analytical knowledges are explained as follows. The verse says:

無礙解有四，謂法義詞辯，

There are four unobstructed analytical knowledges: of dharma, meaning, language and eloquence,

名義言說道，無退智為性，

Taking names, meanings, speech and the path as object, with non-regressing knowledge as nature;

法詞唯俗智，五二地為依，

Of dharma and language, only worldly knowledge, relying on five and two grounds respectively,

義十六辯九，皆依一切地，

Meaning has sixteen, eloquence nine, all relying on every ground,

但得必具四，餘如無諍說。

On attaining one, one necessarily has all four; the rest is as said for non-contention.

論曰：諸無礙解總說有四：一法無礙解、二義無礙解、三詞無礙解、四辯無礙解。此四總說如其次第，以緣名義言及說道不可退轉智為自性，謂無退智緣能詮法名句文身立為第一，緣所詮義立為第二，緣方言詞立為第三，緣應正理無滯礙說及緣自在定慧二道立為第四。此則總說無礙解體兼顯所緣。於中法詞二無礙解唯俗智攝，緣名身等及世言詞事境界故。法無礙解通依五地，謂欲界、四靜慮，以於上地無名等故。詞無礙解唯依二地，謂欲界、初靜慮，以於上地無尋伺故。義無礙解十六智攝，謂若諸法皆名為義，義無礙解則十智攝；若唯涅槃名為義者，義無礙解則六智攝，謂俗、法、類、滅、盡、無生。辯無礙解九智所攝，謂唯除滅，緣說道故。此二通依一切地起，謂依欲界乃至有頂。辯無礙解於說道中，許隨緣一皆得起故。《施設足論》釋此四言：緣名句文，此所詮義。即此一二多男女等言別，此無滯說及所依道無退轉智，如次建立法義詞辯無礙解名，由此顯成四種次第。有餘師說：詞謂一切訓釋言詞，如前說言有變礙故名為色等。辯謂展轉言無滯礙。傳說此四無礙解生，如次串習算計佛語聲明因明為前加行，若於四處未得善巧必不能生無礙解故。理實一切無礙解生，唯學佛語能為加行。如是四種無礙解中，隨得一時必具得四，非不具四可名為得。此四所緣自性依地與前無諍差別如是，種性依身如無諍說。如是所說無諍行等，頌曰：

The treatise says: There are in general four unobstructed analytical knowledges: first, the unobstructed knowledge of dharma; second, the unobstructed knowledge of meaning; third, the unobstructed knowledge of language; fourth, the unobstructed knowledge of eloquence. In general, in order, these four have as their nature the non-regressing knowledge that takes as object names, meanings, speech and the path of exposition. That is, non-regressing knowledge that takes as object the names, phrases and syllables that express dharmas is established as the first; that which takes as object the meaning expressed is the second; that which takes as object regional languages is the third; that which takes as object speech that is unobstructed and in accord with correct reasoning, as well as the two paths of concentration and wisdom that are sovereign, is the fourth. This is a general statement of the substance of the unobstructed analytical knowledges, and also shows their objects. Among these, the knowledges of dharma and language are included only in worldly knowledge, because they take as their object names and so on and matters of worldly language. The unobstructed knowledge of dharma relies on five grounds, namely the desire realm and the four meditations, because in the higher grounds there are no names and the like. The unobstructed knowledge of language relies only on two grounds, namely the desire realm and the first meditation, because in the higher grounds there is no initial and sustained thought. The unobstructed knowledge of meaning is included in sixteen knowledges: if all dharmas are called meaning, the unobstructed knowledge of meaning is included in ten knowledges; if only nirvana is called meaning, it is included in six knowledges, namely worldly, dharma, class, cessation, extinction and non-arising. The unobstructed knowledge of eloquence is included in nine knowledges, excluding only cessation, because it takes the exposition of the path as object. These two arise relying on all grounds, from the desire realm up to the peak of existence. The unobstructed knowledge of eloquence is accepted, in the exposition of the path, as capable of arising by taking any one as object. The Prajnapti-pada explains these four terms: names, phrases and syllables; the meaning they express; with 'one, two, many, male, female' and similar distinctions of speech; this unobstructed speech and the non-regressing knowledge of the path it relies on are established, in order, as the unobstructed knowledges of dharma, meaning, language and eloquence, and by this the order of the four is shown. Some other teachers say: Language means all explanatory words, as in the earlier statement that what has change and obstruction is called form and so on. Eloquence means speech that flows without obstruction. It is said that for these four unobstructed knowledges to arise, practice of calculation, Buddha's words, grammar and logic, in order, serves as the earlier preparation, because without skill in the four fields they certainly cannot arise. In truth, for all unobstructed knowledges to arise, only studying the Buddha's words can serve as preparation. Among these four kinds of unobstructed knowledge, when one is obtained all four are necessarily obtained, and it cannot be called obtaining unless all four are present. The object, nature and ground of these four differ from non-contention as above, while lineage and body are as said for non-contention. As to the non-contention practices and the others so described, the verse says:

六依邊際得，邊際六後定，

The six are obtained relying on the limit; the limit is determined by six later ones,

遍順至究竟，佛餘加行得。

Pervasive, in accord, to the end; the Buddha obtains the rest by preparation.

論曰：無諍、願智、四無礙解六種，皆依邊際定得。邊際靜慮體有六種，前六除詞加餘邊際，詞無礙解雖依彼得而體非彼靜慮所收，邊際名但依第四靜慮故。此一切地遍所隨順故、增至究竟故，得邊際名。云何此名遍所隨順？謂正修學此靜慮時，從欲界心入初靜慮，次第順入乃至有頂，復從有頂入、無所有次第逆入乃至欲界，復從欲界次第順入，展轉乃至第四靜慮，名一切地遍所隨順。云何此名增至究竟？謂專修習第四靜慮，從下至中從中至上，如是三品復各分三，上上品生名至究竟，如是靜慮得邊際名。此中邊名顯無越義，勝無越此故名為邊。際言為顯類義極義，如說四際及實際言。除佛，所餘一切聖者，所說六種唯加行得，非離染得，非皆得故。唯佛於此亦離染得，諸佛功德初盡智時由離染故一切頓得，後時隨欲能引現前不由加行，以佛世尊於一切法自在轉故。已辯前三唯共餘聖德，於亦共凡德且應辯通。頌曰：

The treatise says: Non-contention, knowledge by vow and the four unobstructed knowledges, these six, are all obtained through the concentration of the limit. The meditation of the limit has six kinds in substance: the first six exclude language and add other limits, and although the unobstructed knowledge of language is obtained relying on it, its substance is not included in that meditation, because the name 'limit' applies only to the fourth meditation. It is called the limit because it is followed through all grounds and because it increases to the end. How is it that this is called followed through everywhere? When one is truly practicing this meditation, one enters the first meditation from a desire-realm mind, enters successively in order up to the peak of existence, then from the peak of existence enters in reverse order through nothingness back to the desire realm, then again enters in order from the desire realm, and so on up to the fourth meditation; this is called being followed through all grounds. How is it called increasing to the end? One practices exclusively the fourth meditation, from low to middle and from middle to high; these three grades are each divided again into three, and the highest of the highest arising is called reaching the end. Thus this meditation obtains the name of the limit. Here 'limit' shows the meaning of not being surpassed, being supreme and not to be exceeded, hence called the limit. The word 'edge' shows the meaning of class and extreme, as in the four edges and the real edge. Except for the Buddha, all other noble ones obtain the six kinds described only by preparation, not by freedom from defilement, and do not all obtain them. Only the Buddha also obtains them in this matter by freedom from defilement; the Buddhas' merits are obtained all at once at the time of the first knowledge of extinction through freedom from defilement, and later they can bring them forth at will without preparation, because the Buddha, the World-Honored One, is sovereign over all dharmas. Having explained the first three as merits shared only with other noble ones, the supernormal powers, which are also shared with ordinary beings, should now be discussed. The verse says:

通六謂神境，天眼耳他心，

The six powers are miraculous power, divine eye, divine ear, knowledge of others' minds,

宿住漏盡通，解脫道慧攝。

Past lives, and extinction of outflows, included in the wisdom of the path of liberation.

四俗他心五，漏盡通如力，

Four are worldly, knowledge of others' minds has five, the power of extinction is as in the powers,

五依四靜慮，自下地為境。

Five rely on the four meditations and take their own and lower grounds as object.

聲聞麟喻佛，二三千無數，

Hearers, the solitary buddha who is like a rhinoceros horn, and the Buddha: two, three thousand, innumerable,

未曾由加行，曾修離染得。

Those not previously obtained are by preparation; those cultivated before are obtained by freedom from defilement.

念住初三身，他心三餘四，

The first three are mindfulness of the body, the knowledge of others' minds has three, the other four,

天眼耳無記，餘四通唯善。

Divine eye and ear are indeterminate; the other four powers are only good.

論曰：通有六種，一神境智證通、二天眼智證通、三天耳智證通、四他心智證通、五宿住隨念智證通、六漏盡智證通。雖六通中第六唯聖，然其前五異生亦得，依總相說亦共異生。如是六通解脫道攝，慧為自性，如沙門果。解脫道言顯出障義。神境等四唯俗智攝。他心通五智攝，謂法、類、道、世俗、他心。漏盡通如力說，謂或六或十智。由此已顯漏盡智通依一切地、緣一切境。前之五通依四靜慮。何緣此五不依無色？初三別緣色為境故，修他心通色為門故，修宿住通漸次憶念分位差別方得成故，成時能緣處性等故，依無色地無如是能。諸有欲修他心通者，先審觀己身心二相前後變異展轉相隨，後復審觀他身心相，由此加行漸次得成。成已不觀自心諸色，於他心等能如實知。諸有欲修宿住通者，先自審察次前滅心，漸復逆觀此生分位前前差別至結生心，乃至能憶知中有前一念，名自宿住加行已成。為憶念他加行亦爾。此通初起唯次第知，串習成時亦能超憶。諸所憶事要曾領受，憶淨居者昔曾聞故。從無色歿來生此者，依他相續初起此通，所餘亦依自相續起。修神境等前三通時，思輕光聲以為加行，成已自在隨所應為。故此五通不依無色。又諸無色觀減止增，五通必依止觀均地，未至等地由此已遮，如是五通境唯自下。且如神境隨依何地，於自下地行化自在，於上不然，勢力劣故。餘四亦爾，隨其所應。是故無能取無色界他心、宿住為二通境。即此五通於世界境作用廣陜諸聖不同，謂大聲聞、麟喻、大覺不極作意，如次能於一二三千諸世界境，起行化等自在作用。若極作意，如次能於二千、三千、無數世界。如是五通若有殊勝勢用猛利，從無始來曾未得者由加行得，若曾串習無勝勢用及彼種類由離染得，若起現前皆由加行。佛於一切皆離染得，隨欲現前不由加行。

The treatise says: There are six supernormal powers: first, the realization of miraculous power; second, the realization of the divine eye; third, the realization of the divine ear; fourth, the realization of knowing others' minds; fifth, the realization of recollecting past lives; sixth, the realization of the extinction of outflows. Among the six, the sixth is only for noble ones, but the first five can be obtained also by ordinary beings, so speaking in general they are also shared with ordinary beings. These six powers are included in the path of liberation and have wisdom as their nature, like the fruits of the ascetic life. The four, miraculous power and so on, are included only in worldly knowledge. The power of knowing others' minds is included in five knowledges, namely dharma, class, path, worldly and the knowledge of others' minds. The power of extinction of outflows is as described for the powers, namely six or ten knowledges. This has already shown that the power of extinction of outflows relies on all grounds and takes all objects. The five powers before it rely on the four meditations. Why do these five not rely on the formless realms? Because the first three take form as separate objects; because practicing the power of knowing others' minds takes form as a gateway; because practicing the power of past lives is accomplished only by recollecting differences of stages gradually, and when accomplished it can take as object places, natures and the like, and relying on the formless grounds one does not have this ability. Those wishing to cultivate the power of knowing others' minds first carefully observe the two aspects of their own body and mind and how they change before and after and follow one another, and then carefully observe the aspects of another's body and mind, and by this preparation it is gradually accomplished. After it is accomplished, without observing the forms of one's own mind, one can truly know others' minds and so on. Those wishing to cultivate the power of past lives first examine themselves, the mind that ceased just before, then gradually look back in reverse on the differences of stages in this life, back to the mind of conception, and even recall the single thought before in the intermediate existence, and this is called the preparation of one's own past lives being accomplished. The preparation for recollecting others' is likewise. When this power first arises, it only knows in sequence; when through practice it is accomplished, it can also recall by skipping. All things recalled must have been experienced before; as for recalling the pure abodes, it is because one has heard of them before. For one who died in the formless realm and was born here, this power first arises relying on another's continuum, and the rest arise relying on one's own continuum. When cultivating the first three powers, miraculous power and the rest, one thinks of lightness, light and sound as preparation, and when accomplished one acts freely as appropriate. So these five powers do not rely on the formless realms. Also, in the formless states contemplation diminishes and calm increases, but the five powers must rely on grounds in which calm and insight are balanced, and this excludes the not-yet-arrived and the others; thus these five powers take only their own and lower grounds as object. Take miraculous power for example: whatever ground it relies on, one acts and transforms freely in one's own and the lower grounds, but not in the upper, because the power is inferior. The other four are likewise, as appropriate. For this reason there is no ability to take as an object of the two powers the other minds or past lives of the formless realm. As for the range of function of these five powers over the world, noble ones differ: the great hearers, solitary buddhas and the Great Awakened One, without extreme attention, can in order act and transform freely over one, two and three thousand worlds; with extreme attention, in order, over two, three thousand and innumerable worlds. Of these five powers, if one has superior and sharp power, one that has never been attained since beginningless time is attained by preparation; if one has practiced it before and it lacks superior power, or it is of that kind, it is attained by freedom from defilement; when they arise in the present, all arise by preparation. The Buddha obtains everything by freedom from defilement, and they appear at will without preparation.

六中前三唯身念住，但緣色故，謂神境通緣四外處色香味觸，天眼緣色，天耳緣聲。若爾，何緣說死生智知有情類由現身中成身語意諸惡行等？非天眼通能知此事，有別勝智是通眷屬，依聖身起能如是知。是天眼通力所引故，與通合立死生智名。他心智通三念住攝，謂受、心、法，緣心等故。宿住漏盡四念住攝。通緣五蘊一切境故。此六通中天眼、天耳無記性攝，許此二體是眼耳識相應慧故。若爾，寧說依四靜慮，隨根說故亦無有失。謂所依止眼耳二根，由四靜慮力所引起，即彼地攝，故依四地，通依根故說依四言。或此依通無間道說，通無間道依四地故。餘之四通性皆是善。若爾，何故《品類足》言：通云何？謂善慧。彼據多分，或就勝說。如契經說：無學三明。彼於六通以何為性？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) Among the six, the first three are only mindfulness of the body, since they take only form as object: miraculous power takes as object the four external objects of form, smell, taste and touch, the divine eye takes form, and the divine ear takes sound. If so, why is it said that the knowledge of death and rebirth knows beings by the evil conduct of body, speech and mind they have done in this life? The power of the divine eye cannot know this; there is a separate superior knowledge that is a retinue of the power, arising relying on the body of a noble one, which can know in this way. Because it is led by the power of the divine eye, it is joined with it and named the knowledge of death and rebirth. The power of knowing others' minds is included in three foundations of mindfulness, namely feeling, mind and dharmas, because it takes mind and the like as object. Past lives and extinction of outflows are included in four foundations of mindfulness, because they take all objects of the five aggregates. Among these six powers, the divine eye and divine ear are included in indeterminate nature, because these two are accepted as wisdom accompanied by eye and ear consciousness. If so, how can they be said to rely on the four meditations? It is said according to the faculties, so there is also no fault: the eye and ear faculties relied on are produced by the power of the four meditations and are included in that ground, so they rely on four grounds, and the word 'four' is used because the faculties are relied on in general. Or this is said of the uninterrupted paths of the powers, because the uninterrupted paths of the powers rely on four grounds. The nature of the other four powers is always good. If so, why does the Prakaranapada say: What are the powers? They are good wisdom? It speaks of the majority, or in terms of the superior. As the sutra says: The three knowledges of those beyond training. What are they in the nature of the six powers? The verse says:

第五二六明，治三際愚故，

The fifth, second and sixth are the knowledges, because they remedy delusion about the three times,

後真二假說，學有闇非明。

The last is true, the other two nominal; the learner has darkness and so not knowledge.

論曰：言三明者，一宿住智證明、二死生智證明、三漏盡智證明。如其次第，以無學位攝第五二六通為其自性。六中三種獨名明者，如次對治三際愚故。謂宿住智通治前際愚，死生智通治後際愚，漏盡智通治中際愚。此三皆名無學明者，俱在無學身中起故。於中最後容有是真，通無漏故。餘二假說，體唯非學非無學故。有學身中有愚闇故，雖有前二不立為明。雖有暫時伏滅愚闇，後還被蔽故不名明。契經說有三種示導，彼於六通以何為體？頌曰：

The treatise says: The three knowledges are: first, the knowledge of realizing past lives; second, the knowledge of death and rebirth; third, the knowledge of the extinction of outflows. In order, they have as their own nature the fifth, second and sixth powers included in the stage beyond training. Why among the six are these three alone called knowledges? Because, in order, they counteract delusion about the three times. That is, the power of the knowledge of past lives counteracts delusion about the earlier limit; the power of the knowledge of death and rebirth counteracts delusion about the later limit; the power of the knowledge of extinction of outflows counteracts delusion about the middle limit. These three are all called knowledges of those beyond training because they all arise in the body of one beyond training. Among them the last may be true, because the power is undefiled; the other two are nominal, because their substance is neither learner nor beyond training. Since in the body of a learner there is delusion and darkness, even if the first two exist they are not established as knowledges. Though delusion and darkness may be temporarily subdued, they are again covered later, so they are not called knowledges. The sutra speaks of three kinds of instruction; what is their nature among the six powers? The verse says:

第一四六導，教誡導為尊，

The first, fourth and sixth are the instructions; instruction by admonition is supreme,

定由通所成，引利樂果故。

Because it is certainly accomplished by the powers and leads to beneficial results.

論曰：三示導者，一神變示導、二記心示導、三教誡示導。如其次第，以六通中第一四六為其自性，唯此三種引所化生令初發心最為勝故，或此能引憎背正法及處中者令發心故。能示能導得示導名。又唯此三令於佛法如次歸伏、信受、修行，得示導名，餘三不爾。於二示導，教誡最尊，唯此定由通所成故，定能引他利樂果故。謂前二導呪術亦能，不但由通故非決定。如有呪術名健馱梨，持此便能騰空自在。復有呪術名伊剎尼，持此便能知他心念。教誡示導除漏盡通，餘不能為，故是決定。又前二導有但令他暫時迴心，非引勝果。教誡示導亦定令他引當利益及安樂果，以能如實方便說故。由是教誡最勝非餘。神境二言為目何義？頌曰：

The treatise says: The three instructions are: first, the instruction by miraculous transformation; second, the instruction by reading minds; third, the instruction by admonition. In order, they have as their nature the first, fourth and sixth of the six powers. These three are the most excellent in leading the beings to be converted to first give rise to the aspiration, or they can lead those who hate and turn their backs on the true Dharma and those who are neutral to give rise to the aspiration. Because they can show and lead, they are named instruction. Also, only these three cause beings, in order, to be subdued, to believe and receive, and to practice the Buddha's Dharma, and so obtain the name instruction; the other three are not so. Among the three instructions, instruction by admonition is the most honored, because it alone is certainly accomplished by the power and is certain to lead others to beneficial and joyful results. The first two instructions can also be done through spells, not only through the powers, so they are not certain. For example there is a spell called Gandhari (name of a spell), by holding which one can fly freely through the air. There is also a spell called Iksani (name of a spell), by holding which one can know others' thoughts. Instruction by admonition cannot be done except by the power of the extinction of outflows, so it is certain. Also, the first two instructions sometimes only make others turn their minds temporarily and do not lead to superior fruits. Instruction by admonition certainly leads others to future benefit and the fruit of happiness, because one can truly speak with skillful means. For this reason admonition is the most excellent and the others are not. What do the two words 'miraculous power' mean? The verse says:

神體謂等持，境二謂行化，

The substance of 'spirit' is concentration; the two of 'object' are going and transforming,

行三意勢佛，運身勝解通。

Going has three: by the power of intention, by the Buddha, moving the body, and resolve;

化二謂欲色，四二外處性，

Transformation has two, desire and form, four and two external objects in nature,

此各有二種，謂似自他身。

Each has two kinds, resembling one's own body or another's.

論曰：依毘婆沙所說理趣，神名所目唯勝等持，由此能為神變事故。諸神變事說名為境，此有二種，謂行及化。行復三種：一者運身，謂乘空行猶如飛鳥。二者勝解，謂極遠方作近思惟便能速至。三者意勢，謂極遠方舉心緣時身即能至。此勢如意得意勢名。於此三中意勢唯佛，運身、勝解亦通餘乘。謂我世尊神通迅速隨方遠近舉心即至。由此世尊作如是說：諸佛境界不可思議。故意勢行唯世尊有，勝解兼餘聖，運身並異生。化復二種，謂欲、色界。若欲界化外四處，除聲。若色界化唯二，謂色、觸，以色界中無香、味故。此二界化各有二種，謂屬自身、他身別故。身在欲界化有四種，在色亦然，故總成八。若生在色作欲界化，如何不有成香味失，如衣嚴具作而不成？有說：在色唯化二處，化作、化事。為即是通不？不爾。云何？是通之果。此有幾種？差別云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: According to the reasoning in the Vibhasa, what the word 'spirit' refers to is only superior concentration, because it can accomplish miraculous transformations. The miraculous transformations are called 'objects', and there are two kinds, namely going and transforming. Going has three kinds: first, moving the body, namely traveling through the air like a flying bird. Second, resolve: toward an extremely distant place one thinks of it as near and can quickly arrive. Third, intention-speed: toward an extremely distant place, when the mind is raised and takes it as object, the body can arrive at once. This speed is like the intention, so it obtains the name of the speed of intention. Among the three, the speed of intention belongs only to the Buddha, and moving the body and resolve are also shared by others. That is, our World-Honored One's supernormal powers are swift, and wherever the place, far or near, when the mind is raised he arrives. For this reason the World-Honored One said: The realm of the Buddhas is inconceivable. So going by the speed of intention belongs only to the World-Honored One, resolve is shared with other noble ones, and moving the body is also shared with ordinary beings. Transformation again has two kinds, namely the desire and form realms. If it is the transformation of the desire realm, it is the four external objects, excluding sound. If it is the transformation of the form realm, there are only two, namely form and touch, because in the form realm there are no smell and taste. In the transformation of these two realms there are each two kinds, namely belonging to one's own body or another's. One in the desire realm transforms four kinds, and one in the form realm is likewise, so altogether there are eight. If one born in the form realm makes a transformation of the desire realm, why does it not make the fault of smell and taste, as clothing and ornaments made are not completed? Some say: In the form realm one transforms only two objects, the transformed and the matter of transformation. Is it the power itself? No. How is it? It is the result of the power. How many kinds are there? What are their differences? The verse says:

能化心十四，定果二至五，

The minds able to transform are fourteen; the fruit of concentration has two to five,

如所依定得，從淨自生二。

As obtained by the concentration relied upon, arising from pure and from itself, two;

化事由自地，語通由自下，

Transformed matters are by one's own ground, speech by one's own or lower,

化身與化主，語必俱非佛。

The transformed body and the master of transformation speak together, except the Buddha.

先立願留身，後起餘心語，

Having first made a vow, one leaves the body behind, and later gives rise to speech with another mind,

有死留堅體，餘說無留義。

One who has died may leave a firm body; others say there is no meaning in leaving it,

初多一心化，成滿此相違，

At first many, by one mind one transforms; accomplished and full is the opposite of this,

修得無記攝，餘得通三性。

Those cultivated are included in the indeterminate; others obtained include all three natures.

論曰：神境通果能變化心，力能化生一切化事。此有十四，謂依根本四靜慮生有差別故。依初靜慮有二化心，一欲界攝、二初靜慮。第二靜慮有三化心，二種如前，加二靜慮。第三有四，第四有五，謂各自下，如理應思。諸果化心依自上地必無依下，下地定心不生上果，勢力劣故。第二定等果下地化心，對初定等果上地化心，由依及行亦得名勝。如得靜慮化心亦然，果與所依俱時得故。諸從靜慮起果化心，此心必無直出觀義，謂從淨定起初化心，此後後心從自類起，此前前念生自類心，最後化心還生淨定。故此從二能生二心，非定果心無記性攝。不還入定有直出義，如從門入還從門出，諸所化事由自地心，無異地化心起餘地化故。化所發言通由自下，謂欲初定化所發言，此言必由自地心起。上化起語由初定心，上地自無起表心故。若一化主起多化身，要化主語時諸化身方語，言音詮表一切皆同故。有伽他作如是說：

The treatise says: The mind that can transform, the fruit of the supernormal power, has the power to produce all transformed matters. There are fourteen of these, because they differ according to arising relying on the four root meditations. Relying on the first meditation there are two transforming minds, one included in the desire realm and one in the first meditation. In the second meditation there are three transforming minds, two as before and adding the second meditation. In the third there are four, in the fourth five, each being one's own and the lower, as should be considered according to reason. The various fruit minds of transformation, relying on one's own or higher grounds, certainly do not rely on lower ones, because a concentrated mind of a lower ground does not give rise to the upper fruit, its power being inferior. The transforming mind of a lower ground that is the fruit of the second concentration and so on, compared with the transforming mind of the upper ground that is the fruit of the first concentration and so on, is also called superior through its support and its practice. Obtaining the transforming mind of a meditation is also so, since the fruit and the support are obtained at the same time. The fruit transforming minds that arise from a meditation certainly do not go straight out of contemplation: that is, from a pure concentration the first transforming mind arises, after which each succeeding mind arises from one of its own kind, the preceding thought giving rise to a mind of its own kind, and the last transforming mind again gives rise to a pure concentration. Therefore this arises from two and can give rise to two minds, and the fruit minds of concentration are not of indeterminate nature. A non-returner entering concentration has the meaning of going straight out, as entering from a door and leaving by the same door. The transformed matters arise from the mind of one's own ground, since a mind of a different ground does not arise and transform other grounds. Speech uttered by a transformation may be from one's own or lower ground: that is, the speech uttered by a transformation of the desire realm and first concentration must arise from a mind of one's own ground. When a higher transformation speaks, it is through the mind of the first concentration, because the higher grounds do not themselves have a mind that gives rise to manifest speech. If one master of transformation arises as many transformed bodies, the transformed bodies speak only when the master of transformation speaks, because the sounds and their expressed meanings are all the same. A verse says:

一化主語時，諸所化皆語，

When the one master of transformation speaks, all that are transformed speak,

一化主若默，諸所化亦然。

When the one master of transformation is silent, all that are transformed are also so.

此但說餘，佛則不爾，佛諸定力最自在故，與所化語容不俱時，言音所詮亦容有別。發語心起，化心既無，應無化身，化如何語？由先願力留所化身，後起餘心發語表業，故雖化語二心不俱，而依化身亦得發語。非唯化主命現在時能留化身令久時住，亦有令住至命終後，即如尊者大迦葉波留骨瑣身至慈尊世。唯堅實體可得久留，故迦葉波不留肉等。有餘師說：願力留身必無有能令至死後。飲光尊者留骨瑣身，由諸天神持令久住。初習業者由多化心方能化生一所化事，習成滿者由一化心隨欲化生多少化事。如是十四能變化心皆是修得，無記性攝，即是通果無記攝義。餘生得等能變化心，通善不善無記性攝。如天龍等能變化心，彼亦能為自他身化，於十色處化九除聲。理實無能化為根者，然所化境不離根故，言化九處亦無有失。天眼耳言為目何義？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) This is said only of others; the Buddha is not so, because the power of the Buddhas' concentrations is the most sovereign, and the speech of the transformed may not occur at the same time, and the meaning expressed by the sounds may differ. Since when the mind that utters speech arises there is no transforming mind, there should be no transformed body, so how does the transformation speak? Through the earlier power of a vow one leaves behind the transformed body, and later with another mind gives rise to manifest speech, so although the transforming mind and the speaking mind do not occur together, speech also arises relying on the transformed body. It is not only while the master of transformation's life is present that the transformed body can be left for a long time; it can also be made to remain until after death, as the venerable Mahakasyapa left his skeleton body until the time of Maitreya. Only a solid substance can be left for long, so Kasyapa did not leave flesh and the like. Some other teachers say: By the power of a vow, leaving a body until after death is certainly not possible. The venerable Kasyapa's skeleton body was held to remain long by the gods and spirits. Those who are just beginning the practice need many transforming minds to produce one transformed matter, while those who have accomplished it, with one transforming mind can, as they wish, produce many or few transformed matters. These fourteen minds able to transform are all obtained by cultivation, included in the indeterminate, which is the meaning of the fruit of the powers being indeterminate. Other transforming minds, such as those obtained by birth and so on, include good, unwholesome and indeterminate natures. For example, the transforming minds of gods and dragons can also make transformations of their own and others' bodies, and in the ten kinds of form-bases they transform nine, excluding sound. In truth nothing can be transformed into a faculty, but since the transformed objects are not separate from the faculties, there is no fault in saying nine bases are transformed. What do the words divine eye and ear mean? The verse says:

天眼耳謂根，即定地淨色，

The divine eye and ear are faculties, namely pure form of a concentration ground,

恆同分無缺，取障細遠等。

Always of the same class, without defect, taking what is obstructed, subtle, distant and so on.

論曰：此言唯目天眼耳根，即四靜慮所生淨色，謂緣光聲修加行故。依四靜慮於眼耳邊引起彼地微妙大種所造淨色眼耳二根，見色聞聲名天眼耳。如是眼耳何故名天？體即是天，定地攝故。然天眼耳種類有三：一修得天，即如前說。二者生得，謂生天中。三者似天，謂生餘趣由勝業等之所引生，能遠見聞似天眼耳。如藏臣寶、菩薩、輪王、諸龍鬼神及中有等。修得眼耳過現當生恆是同分，以至現在必與識俱能見聞故。處所必具無翳無缺，如生色界一切有情，能隨所應取被障隔極細遠等諸方色聲。故於此中有如是頌：

The treatise says: These words refer only to the divine eye and ear faculties, namely the pure form produced by the four meditations, because one practices preparation by taking light and sound as object. Relying on the four meditations, at the edge of the eye and ear, it arouses the pure form faculties of eye and ear, made of subtle great elements of that ground, and seeing forms and hearing sounds is called the divine eye and ear. Why are such eyes and ears called divine? Their substance is itself divine, being included in the concentration ground. However, divine eyes and ears are of three kinds: first, those obtained by cultivation, as described above. Second, those obtained by birth, namely born among the gods. Third, those resembling the divine, namely born in other destinies, led to arise by superior karma and so on, which can see and hear far like divine eyes and ears, such as the treasure minister, bodhisattvas, wheel-turning kings, dragons, spirits and beings in the intermediate existence. The eyes and ears obtained by cultivation, past, present and future, are always of the same class, because up to the present they are accompanied by consciousness and can see and hear. The place must be without obstruction or defect, as with all beings born in the form realm, who can take, as appropriate, forms and sounds in all directions that are obstructed, extremely subtle or distant. So there is a verse here:

肉眼於諸方，被障細遠色，

The physical eye, in all directions, cannot make the effort to see

無能見功用，天眼見無遺。

Forms that are obstructed, subtle or distant; the divine eye sees without omission.

前說化心修餘得異，神境等五各有異耶？亦有。云何？頌曰：

The differences in how the transforming minds were described above, and how the others are obtained by cultivation, apply also to each of the five powers such as miraculous power. How? The verse says:

神境五修生，呪藥業成故，

The five powers, miraculous power and so on, arise through cultivation, spells, drugs and karma;

他心修生呪，又加占相成，

The knowledge of others' minds arises through cultivation and spells, and is also accomplished by divination;

三修生業成，除修皆三性，

The three arise through cultivation and karma; apart from cultivation all have three natures;

人唯無生得，地獄初能知。

Among humans only the non-arising obtains it, and in hell beings first can know.

論曰：神境智類總有五種：一修得、二生得、三呪成、四藥成、五業成。曼馱多王及中有等諸神境智是業成攝。他心智類總有四種，前三如上，加占相成。餘三各三，謂修、生、業。除修所得，皆通善等。非定果故不得通名。人中都無生所得者，餘皆容有。隨其所應本性生念業所成攝。於地獄趣初受生時，唯以生得他心、宿住，知他心等及過去生，苦受逼已更無知義。若生餘趣，如應當知。

The treatise says: Knowledge of supernormal power (the power of transformation) is of five kinds in all: obtained by cultivation, obtained by birth, accomplished by mantra, accomplished by drugs, and accomplished by karma. The supernormal powers of King Mandhatr (the name of a wheel-turning king), of beings in the intermediate state, and the like are included under those accomplished by karma. Knowledge of others' minds is of four kinds in all: the first three are as above, with the addition of that accomplished by reading physical signs. Of the remaining three, each has three kinds, namely cultivation, birth, and karma. Except for what is obtained by cultivation, all of them extend to wholesome and other kinds of mind. Since they are not the fruit of meditative absorption, they are not called by the name of the higher knowledges. Among human beings there is none obtained by birth; among the others, all may exist. They are included under the karma-accomplished kind, following the original nature of the mind that gives rise to them. When one first takes birth in the hell realm, one knows others' minds and the like, and past lives, only through the knowledge of others' minds and of past abodes obtained by birth; once oppressed by painful sensation, there is nothing further to be known. If one is born in the other realms, one should understand in the same way.

尊者世親造

Composed by the Venerable Vasubandhu

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by the Tripitaka Master Xuanzang by imperial command

分別定品第八之一

Chapter 8, Part 1: Analysis of Meditative Absorption

已說諸智所成功德，餘性功德今次當辯，於中先辯所依止定。且諸定內靜慮云何？頌曰：

Having explained the merits accomplished through the various kinds of knowledge, we shall now discuss the other kinds of merits in their own nature. Among them, we first discuss the meditative absorptions on which they rely. And among the absorptions, what are the dhyanas like? The verse says:

靜慮四各二，於中生已說，

The four dhyanas each have two kinds; birth in them has already been explained,

定謂善一境，並伴五蘊性，

Absorption is wholesome one-pointedness of mind, together with its five aggregates as companions,

初具伺喜樂，後漸離前支。

The first has inquiry, joy and bliss; the later ones gradually drop the earlier factors.

論曰：一切功德多依靜慮，故應先辯靜慮差別。此總有四種，謂初二三四，四各有二，謂定及生。生靜慮體世品已說，謂第四八，前三各三。定靜慮體總而言之是善性攝心一境性，以善等持為自性故；若並助伴，五蘊為性。何名一境性？謂專一所緣。若爾，即心專一境位，依之建立三摩地名，不應別有餘心所法。別法令心於一境轉名三摩地，非體即心。豈不諸心剎那滅故皆一境轉，何用等持？若謂令心於第二念不散亂故須有等持，則於相應等持無用。又由此故三摩地成。寧不即由斯心於一境轉？又三摩地是大地法，應一切心皆一境轉。不爾，餘品等持劣故。有餘師說：即心一境相續轉時名三摩地，契經說此為增上心學故，心清淨最勝即四靜慮故。依何義故立靜慮名？由此寂靜能審慮故。審慮即是實了知義，如說心在定，能如實了知，審慮義中置地界故。此宗審慮以慧為體。若爾，諸等持皆應名靜慮。不爾，唯勝方立此名。如世間言發光名日，非螢燭等亦得日名。靜慮如何獨名為勝？諸等持內唯此攝支，止觀均行最能審慮，得現法樂住及樂通行名，故此等持獨名靜慮。若爾，染汙寧得此名？由彼亦能邪審慮故，是則應有太過之失。無太過失，要相似中方立名故，如敗種等。世尊亦說有惡靜慮。若一境性是靜慮體，依何相立初二三四？具伺喜樂建立為初，由此已明亦具尋義，必俱行故，如煙與火。非伺有喜樂，而不與尋俱。漸離前支立二三四，離伺有二，離二有樂，具離三種。如其次第，故一境性分為四種。已辯靜慮。無色云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: All merits mostly rely on the dhyanas, so the distinctions among the dhyanas should be discussed first. There are four in all: the first, second, third and fourth. Each of the four has two kinds, namely absorption and birth. The nature of birth in a dhyana was already explained in the chapter on the world: the fourth has eight kinds, and each of the first three has three. The nature of dhyana as absorption, in general terms, is the one-pointedness of a mind of wholesome nature, with wholesome concentration as its own nature; if the accompanying factors are included, it has the five aggregates as its nature. What is meant by one-pointedness? It means focusing exclusively on one object. If so, then it is simply the state in which the mind is focused on a single object, and the name samadhi is established in dependence on it; there should be no separate mental factor. A separate factor that makes the mind proceed toward one object is called samadhi, but its substance is not the mind itself. But since every moment of mind ceases instantly and so proceeds toward a single object, what is the use of concentration? If one says that concentration is needed so that the mind is not scattered in the second moment, then for the associated concentration it would be useless. Moreover, because of this, samadhi would be established; so why not say that by this alone the mind proceeds toward a single object? Furthermore, samadhi is a universal mental factor and should be present in every mind, all of which proceed toward a single object. If not, the concentration of other classes would be inferior. Other masters say: when the mind continues to proceed toward one object in a stream, it is called samadhi. For the sutra says this is the training in the higher mind, and because the purity of the mind is supreme, it is the four dhyanas. On what ground is the name dhyana established? Because through this tranquility one can examine and contemplate. Contemplation means actual, true knowing, as in the saying that the mind in concentration can truly know; and the sense of contemplation is that of establishing a ground. According to this school, contemplation has wisdom as its substance. If so, all concentrations should be called dhyana. Not so; only the superior ones are given this name. In the world, what gives off light is called the sun, but fireflies and candles are not given the name sun. Why is dhyana alone called superior? Among all concentrations, only this one includes the factors, balances calm and insight evenly, and is best able to contemplate; it obtains the name of dwelling in bliss in this very life and of bliss that spreads through the body, and therefore only this concentration is called dhyana. If so, how can a defiled one be given this name? Because it too can contemplate wrongly; but then there would be the fault of excessive extension. There is no such fault, since a name is established only among things that are similar, like a spoiled seed and the like. The World-Honored One also spoke of evil dhyana. If one-pointedness is the substance of dhyana, on what characteristics are the first, second, third and fourth established? The first is established by possessing inquiry, joy and bliss; this makes clear that it also possesses initial thought, since it necessarily occurs together with it, as smoke does with fire. It is not that there is inquiry with joy and bliss but without initial thought. The second, third and fourth are established by gradually dropping the earlier factors: dropping inquiry gives the second, dropping the two gives the third with bliss, and dropping all three gives the fourth. Thus, in due order, one-pointedness is divided into four kinds. The dhyanas have been explained. What of the formless attainments? The verse says:

無色亦如是，四蘊離下地，

The formless attainments are likewise so: four aggregates, apart from the lower realms,

並上三近分，總名除色想，

Together with the three upper access stages, are collectively called the removal of the perception of form,

無色謂無色，後色起從心。

Formless means without form; later form arises from the mind.

空無邊等三，名從加行立，

The names of the Infinity of Space and the others come from the preparatory practice,

非想非非想，昧劣故立名。

Neither-Perception-nor-Non-Perception is so named because perception there is dim and weak.

論曰：此與靜慮數自性同，謂四各二。生如前說，即世品說由生有四。定無色體，總而言之亦善性攝心一境性。依此故說亦如是言。然助伴中此除色蘊，無色無有隨轉色故。雖一境性體相無差，離下地生故分四種。謂若已離第四靜慮生立空無邊處，乃至已離無所有處生立非想非非想處。離名何義？謂由此道解脫下地惑，是離下染義。即此四根本並上三近分，總說名為除去色想。空處近分未得此名，緣下地色起色想故。皆無色故立無色名，此因不成，許有色故。若爾，何故立無色名？由彼色微故名無色，如微黃物亦名無黃。許彼界中色有何相？若彼唯有身語律儀。身語既無，律儀寧有？又無大種，何有造色？若謂如有無漏律儀。不爾，無漏依有漏大種故，又彼定中亦遮有故。若許於彼有色根身，如何可言彼色微少？若謂於彼身量小故，水細蟲極微亦應名無色，亦身量小不可見故。若謂彼身極清妙故，中有色界應名無色。若謂彼身清妙中極，應唯有頂得無色名。如定生身有勝劣故，又生靜慮所有色身非下地根所能取故，與彼何異不名無色？若謂欲色隨義立名，無色不然。此有何理？若謂經說壽煖合故，又說名色與識相依如二蘆束相依住故，又說名色識為緣故，又遮離色乃至離行識有來有去故，由此無色有色理成。此證不成，應審思故。謂所引教應共審思，且契經言壽煖合者，為約一切界、為約欲界說？名色與識相依住者，為約一切界、為約欲色說？所說名色識為緣者，為說一切識皆為名色緣、為說名色生無不緣於識？遮離色至行識有來去者，為遮隨離一、為遮離一切？若謂契經言無簡別，不應於此更致審思。此說不然，太過失故。謂應外煖亦與壽合。又應外名色依識識為緣。又說四食如四識住，色無色界應有段食。

The treatise says: These are the same as the dhyanas in number and nature, that is, each of the four has two kinds. Birth is as explained before, namely the four kinds of birth explained in the chapter on the world. As to the substance of formless absorption, in general it too is the one-pointedness of a mind of wholesome nature. Relying on this, it is said to be likewise. However, among its companions the form aggregate is excluded, because in the formless realm there is no form that accompanies the mind. Although the substance and characteristics of one-pointedness do not differ, it is divided into four kinds according to separation from the lower realms. That is, once one has been freed from birth in the fourth dhyana, the Infinity of Space is established; and so on, until, once one has been freed from the Nothing Whatsoever, the Neither-Perception-nor-Non-Perception is established. What does freedom mean? It means that by this path one is released from the afflictions of the lower realms, that is, freed from the defilements of the lower realms. These four fundamental stages together with the three upper access stages are collectively called the removal of the perception of form. The access stage of space does not yet obtain this name, because it takes the form of the lower realm as its object and gives rise to perception of form. Since all of them are called formless, this reason is not established, because they are admitted to have form. If so, why are they called formless? Because their form is subtle, they are called formless, just as a faintly yellow thing is also called not yellow. What characteristics does form have in those realms, as you admit? If there are only bodily and verbal restraints, then, since body and speech do not exist there, how could restraints exist? Moreover, without the great elements, how could there be derived form? If one says it is like the undefiled restraint, that is not so, since the undefiled depends on defiled great elements, and moreover that is also precluded within those absorptions. If one admits that there is a bodily faculty of form in those realms, how can one say that their form is subtle and slight? If one says it is because their bodies are small, then even microscopic water creatures and atoms would be called formless, since they too are small and invisible. If one says it is because their bodies are extremely pure and refined, then beings in the intermediate state of the form realm should be called formless. If one says their bodies are pure and refined in the extreme, then only the highest should obtain the name formless. Since bodies born of absorption differ in being superior and inferior, and since the material bodies born of the dhyanas cannot be grasped by the faculties of the lower realms, how do they differ from those, so that they are not called formless? If one says that the desire and form realms are named according to their meaning but the formless is not so, what is the reason for this? If one says that the sutra speaks of life and warmth being joined, and says that name-and-form and consciousness depend on each other like two bundled reeds standing together, and says that consciousness has name-and-form as its condition, and also denies that consciousness can come and go apart from form, up to apart from formations, then by these the existence of form in the formless realm is established. This proof is not established, and it should be carefully examined. That is, the scriptures cited should be examined together. First, when the sutra says that life and warmth are joined, is it said with reference to all realms, or only the desire realm? When it says that name-and-form and consciousness depend on each other, is it said of all realms, or of the desire and form realms? When it says that consciousness has name-and-form as its condition, does it mean that every consciousness is a condition for name-and-form, or that the arising of name-and-form is never without consciousness as a condition? When it denies that consciousness can come and go apart from form up to apart from formations, does it deny separation from any one of them, or separation from all of them? If one says that the sutra makes no such distinction and so there is no need to examine further, this statement is not acceptable, because it leads to excessive consequences. That is, external warmth would also have to be joined with life; external name-and-form would also have to depend on consciousness and have consciousness as condition; and it is also said that the four foods are like the four stations of consciousness, so the formless realm would have to have coarse food.

若謂經說有一類天超段食故，又說彼天喜為食故，無斯過者，則無色界不應有色，契經說彼出離色故。又契經言：無色解脫最為寂靜，超諸色故。又契經說：無色有情，一切色想皆超越故。若無色界實有色者，定應彼色自相可知，如何可言超色想等？若謂觀下麁色故說，則於段食亦應許然。又諸靜慮超下麁色，亦應可說出離色言，是則亦應名無色界。又亦應說出離受等，彼亦超下麁受等故。經既不說，知無色中遍超色類，非超受等。由此定知，彼界無色。然契經中說有不出有者，於自地有不能出故，非遍出故、非永出故。又薄伽梵於靜慮中說有色類乃至識類，於無色中說有受類乃至識類，不說有色。若無色中實有色者，何不如靜慮說有色類言？故所立因無不成過。在彼多劫色相續斷，後歿生下色從何生？此從心生，非從色起。謂昔所起色異熟因燻習在心，功能今熟，是故今色從彼心生。彼無色身心依何轉？離身何不轉？下曾不見故。色界無段食，身復依何轉？下亦不見身離段食轉故。又先說彼心轉所依，已釋總名，空無邊等從緣空等得別名耶？不爾。云何？下三無色，如其次第修加行時，思無邊空及無邊識、無所有故建立三名。立第四名由想昧劣，謂無明勝想得非想名，有昧劣想故名非非想。雖加行時亦作是念：諸想如病如箭如癰。若想全無便同痴闇，唯有非想非非想中與上相違寂靜美妙，而不就此加行立名。以若詰言何緣加行作如是念？必應答言以於彼處想昧劣故。由此昧劣故，是立名正因。已辯無色。云何等至？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) If one says that the sutra states that a certain class of gods transcend coarse food, and also says that those gods take joy as food, then since this fault does not arise, the formless realm should not have form, because the sutra says that they have departed from form. The sutra also says: the formless liberation is the most tranquil, because it transcends all forms. The sutra also says: the formless beings have transcended all perceptions of form. If the formless realm really had form, the characteristics of that form would certainly be knowable; how then could it be said that they transcend perception of form and so on? If one says this is said in view of coarse form in the lower realms, then the same should be admitted of coarse food. Moreover, the dhyanas also transcend the coarse form of the lower realms, and it could likewise be said that they have departed from form, and then they too would be called the formless realm. It should also be said that they have departed from sensation and the like, since they also transcend the coarse sensations of the lower realms. Since the sutra does not say so, we know that in the formless realm there is a universal transcendence of the whole class of form, not of sensation and the others. From this we know for certain that those realms have no form. However, the sutra speaks of having what does not go beyond existence; this is because one cannot go beyond one's own stage, not because they have not gone beyond universally or forever. Moreover, the Blessed One, speaking of the dhyanas, mentions the class of form up to the class of consciousness, but speaking of the formless attainments, mentions the class of sensation up to the class of consciousness, and does not mention form. If the formless realm really had form, why would it not be said, as for the dhyanas, that it has the class of form? Therefore the reason we put forward is not faulty by being unestablished. After many kalpas in that realm the stream of form is cut off; when one dies and is born in a lower realm, from what does form arise? It arises from the mind, not from form. That is, the habitual impressions of the ripening cause of the earlier form were planted in the mind, and their potency ripens now; therefore the present form arises from that mind. In that formless realm, on what do body and mind rely to proceed? And why can they not proceed apart from the body? Because we have never seen this in the lower realms. In the form realm there is no coarse food; on what does the body then rely to proceed? Because we have never seen in the lower realms a body proceeding without coarse food. Moreover, we already explained the basis on which the mind there proceeds, so the matter is settled. Do the names Infinity of Space and the rest come from taking space and the rest as objects? No. How then? In the lower three formless attainments, in due order, the three names are established when one cultivates the preparatory practice by contemplating infinite space, infinite consciousness, and nothing whatsoever. The fourth name is established because perception there is dim and weak: strong perception is called perception, hence the name Non-Perception, while the presence of faint perception gives the name Non-Non-Perception. Although in the preparatory practice one also thinks that perceptions are like a disease, an arrow, an abscess, and that if perception were entirely absent one would be like one in stupor and darkness, only in Neither-Perception-nor-Non-Perception is there a tranquility and excellence opposite to those above, and yet the name is not established from the preparatory practice. For if one asks why one thinks thus in the preparatory practice, one must answer that it is because perception there is dim and weak. Hence this dimness and weakness is the true cause of the name. The formless attainments have been explained. What of the attainments of equipoise? The verse says:

此本等至八，前七各有三，

These fundamental attainments are eight; the first seven each have three kinds,

謂味淨無漏，後味淨二種，

Namely tasting, pure and undefiled; the last has two kinds, tasting and pure,

味謂愛相應，淨謂世間善，

Tasting means associated with craving; pure means worldly wholesome,

此即所味著，無漏謂出世。

This is what is savored and clung to; undefiled means supramundane.

論曰：此上所辯靜慮無色。根本等至總有八種，於中前七各具有三，有頂等至唯有二種，此地昧劣無無漏故。初味等至，謂愛相應，愛能味著故名為味，彼相應故此得味名。淨等至名目世善定，與無貪等諸白淨法相應起故，此得淨名。即味相應所味著境，此無間滅彼味定生。緣過去淨深生味著，爾時雖名出所味定，於能味定得名為入。無漏定者，謂出世定，愛不緣故非所味著。如是所說八等至中靜慮攝支，非諸無色。於四靜慮各有幾支？頌曰：

The treatise says: Of the dhyanas and formless attainments explained above, the fundamental attainments are eight in all. Among them the first seven each have three kinds, while the Peak of Existence has only two, because that stage is dim and weak and has no undefiled attainment. The first, the tasting attainment, is associated with craving; since craving savors and clings, it is called tasting, and because it is associated with that, this attainment obtains the name tasting. The name pure attainment designates the worldly wholesome absorption; because it arises together with the pure white factors such as non-greed, it obtains the name pure. The object that is savored in association with tasting is this; when it ceases without interval, that tasting absorption arises. Taking the past pure absorption as object, one develops deep attachment; at that time, although one is said to emerge from the savored absorption, with regard to the absorption that savors one is said to enter it. The undefiled absorption is the supramundane absorption; because craving does not take it as object, it is not what is savored and clung to. Of the eight attainments spoken of in this way, it is the dhyanas that include the factors, not the formless attainments. How many factors does each of the four dhyanas have? The verse says:

靜慮初五支，尋伺喜樂定；

The first dhyana has five factors: initial thought, inquiry, joy, bliss, and concentration;

第二有四支，內淨喜樂定；

The second has four factors: inner serenity, joy, bliss, and concentration;

第三具五支，捨念慧樂定；

The third has five factors: equanimity, mindfulness, wisdom, bliss, and concentration;

第四有四支，捨念中受定。

The fourth has four factors: equanimity, mindfulness, neutral sensation, and concentration.

論曰：唯淨無漏四靜慮中初具五支：一尋、二伺、三喜、四樂、五等持。此中等持頌說為定，等持與定名異體同，故契經說心定等定名正等持。此亦名為心一境性，義如前釋。傳說唯定是靜慮亦靜慮支，餘四支是靜慮支非靜慮。如實義者，如四支軍，餘靜慮支應知亦爾。第二靜慮唯有四支：一內等淨、二喜、三樂、四等持。第三靜慮具有五支：一行捨、二正念、三正慧、四受樂、五等持。第四靜慮唯有四支：一行捨清淨、二念清淨、三非苦樂受、四等持。靜慮支名既有十八，於中實事總有幾種？頌曰：

The treatise says: Only in the pure and undefiled four dhyanas does the first have five factors: first initial thought, second inquiry, third joy, fourth bliss, fifth concentration. Here the verse calls concentration absorption; concentration and absorption differ in name but are the same in substance, and so the sutra speaks of the mind being settled, equally settled, and rightly concentrated. This is also called one-pointedness of mind, whose meaning was explained above. It is said that only absorption is both the dhyana and a factor of the dhyana, while the other four factors are factors of the dhyana but are not the dhyana. In truth, it is like a four-division army; the factors of the other dhyanas should be understood likewise. The second dhyana has only four factors: first inner serenity, second joy, third bliss, fourth concentration. The third dhyana has five factors: first equanimity in action, second right mindfulness, third right wisdom, fourth the sensation of bliss, fifth concentration. The fourth dhyana has only four factors: first purity of equanimity, second purity of mindfulness, third sensation neither painful nor pleasant, fourth concentration. Since the names of the dhyana factors number eighteen, how many distinct entities are there among them? The verse says:

此實事十一，初二樂輕安，

These entities number eleven: the first two bliss and pliancy,

內淨即信根，喜即是喜受。

Inner serenity is the faculty of faith; joy is the sensation of joy.

論曰：此支實事唯有十一，謂初五支即五實事。第二靜慮三支如前，增內淨支足前為六。第三靜慮等持如前，增餘四支足前為十。第四靜慮三支如前，增非苦樂支足前為十一。由此故說，有是初支非第二支，應作四句。第一句謂尋伺。第二句謂內淨。第三句謂喜、樂、等持。第四句。謂除前餘法。餘支相對，如理應思。何故第三說增樂受？由初二樂，輕安攝故。何理為證知是輕安？初二定中無樂根故。非初二定有身受樂，正在定中無五識故。亦無心受樂，以說有喜故。喜即喜受，無一心中二受俱行，故無樂受。不可喜樂更互現前，說具五支及四支故。有說：無有心受樂根，三靜慮中說樂支者，皆是身受所攝樂根。若爾，何故有契經說：云何樂根？謂順樂觸力所引生身心樂受。有餘於此增益心言，諸部經中唯說身故。又第三定所立樂支，契經自說為身所受樂故。若謂於此說意為身，此說身名為有何德？又第四定輕安倍增，而不說彼有樂支故。若謂輕安要順樂受方名為樂，第三靜慮輕安順樂應是樂支。若謂彼輕安為行捨所損。不爾，行捨增輕安故。又彼輕安勝前二故。又契經說：若於爾時諸聖弟子於離生喜身作證具足住，彼於爾時已斷五法，修習五法皆得圓滿，廣說乃至何等名為所修五法？一歡、二喜、三輕安、四樂、五三摩地。此經輕安與樂別說，故初二樂非即輕安。若言定中寧有身識？有亦無失，許在定中有輕安風勝定所起，順生樂受遍觸身故。若謂外散故應失壞定者，無如是失，此輕安風從勝定生，引內身樂還能順起三摩地故。若謂起身識應名出定者，此難不然，由前因故。若謂依止欲界身根不應得生色界觸識，緣輕安識，許生無過。若爾，正在無漏定中觸及身識應成無漏。勿所立支少分有漏、少分無漏，成違理失。無違理失。所以者何？許說身輕安是覺支攝故。若謂順彼故說覺支，無漏亦應許如是說。

The treatise says: The entities of these factors are only eleven. That is, the five factors of the first are five entities. The three factors of the second are as before, and the addition of the factor of inner serenity makes six. The concentration of the third is as before, and the addition of the other four factors makes ten. The three factors of the fourth are as before, and the addition of the factor of neutral sensation makes eleven. For this reason, when one says that something is a factor of the first but not of the second, four alternatives should be made. The first is initial thought and inquiry. The second is inner serenity. The third is joy, bliss and concentration. The fourth is the remaining dharmas apart from the foregoing. The mutual relations of the other factors should be reflected on in the same way. Why is the sensation of bliss said to be added in the third? Because the bliss of the first two is included under pliancy. What is the proof that it is pliancy? Because in the first two absorptions there is no faculty of bliss. It is not that in the first two absorptions there is bodily pleasant sensation, because while in absorption there are no five sense consciousnesses. Nor is there mental pleasant sensation, since joy is said to be present. Joy is the sensation of joy, and two sensations do not occur together in a single mind, so there is no sensation of bliss. It cannot be that joy and bliss alternately arise, since it is said that there are five factors and four factors. Some say: there is no mental faculty of bliss; the bliss factor spoken of in the three dhyanas is in every case the faculty of bliss included in bodily sensation. If so, why does a sutra say: what is the faculty of bliss? It is the mental and bodily pleasant sensation produced by the force of agreeable contact. Others have added the word mind here; but in the sutras of all the schools only the body is mentioned. Moreover, the sutra itself says that the bliss factor established in the third absorption is bliss experienced by the body. If one says that here the mind is called the body, what virtue is there in calling it the body? Furthermore, pliancy is doubled in the fourth absorption, yet it is not said to have the bliss factor. If one says that pliancy is called bliss only when it accords with pleasant sensation, then the pliancy of the third dhyana, which accords with bliss, should be the bliss factor. If one says that that pliancy is damaged by equanimity in action, that is not so, since equanimity in action increases pliancy; and moreover that pliancy is superior to the former two. Again the sutra says: when the noble disciples at that time dwell having realized and perfected in the body the joy born of detachment, at that time they have abandoned five things and cultivated five things to completion, and so on, up to: what are the five things to be cultivated? First delight, second joy, third pliancy, fourth bliss, fifth samadhi. In this sutra pliancy and bliss are mentioned separately, so the bliss of the first two dhyanas is not pliancy itself. If one asks how there can be bodily consciousness in absorption, there is no fault in admitting it: it is admitted that in absorption there is a superior wind of pliancy arising from the absorption, which spreads through the body and conforms to the arising of pleasant sensation. If one says that being scattered outward it should destroy the absorption, there is no such fault, because this wind of pliancy arises from superior absorption, induces bliss in the inner body, and in turn conforms to the arising of samadhi. If one says that arising of bodily consciousness should be called emerging from absorption, this objection is not valid, for the reason given before. If one says that, since it depends on the bodily faculty of the desire realm, it should not be able to give rise to bodily contact and consciousness of the form realm, then the consciousness that takes pliancy as object is admitted to arise without fault. If so, bodily consciousness in contact within the undefiled absorption would become undefiled. But one should not allow the faults of a factor being partly defiled and partly undefiled, which would contradict reason. There is no contradiction, because it is admitted that bodily pliancy is included among the factors of awakening. If one says it is called a factor of awakening because it accords with those, then the undefiled should also be admitted to be said so.

若謂許說，便違契經。如契經言：諸所有眼乃至廣說。此經中說十五界全皆有漏故，無違經過，此約餘觸及餘身識密意說故。如何無漏靜慮現前，少支有漏、少支無漏？起不俱時，斯有何失。若謂喜樂不俱起故，應無五支及四支理。此亦無過，約容有說有喜樂支，如有尋伺。若謂尋伺亦許俱起，於不俱起為喻不成。此非不成，心之麁細互相違故不應俱起。又於不俱起不能說過故。由此可說，依初五支減二三四立第二等，即由此理初說五支，擬漸離前、建立後故。無漸減故，不說想等。或應說何故初唯立五支？若謂此五資初定勝故立為支。此不應理，念慧能資勝尋伺故。雖有一類作如是說，然非古昔諸軌範師共施設故，應審思擇。應說何法名內等淨？此定遠離尋伺鼓動，相續清淨轉，名為內等淨。若有尋伺鼓動，相續不清淨轉，如河有浪。若爾，此應無有別體，如何許有十一實事？是故應說此即信根。謂若證得第二靜慮，則於定地亦可離中有深信生，名內等淨。信是淨相，故立淨名。離外均流，故名內等。淨而內等，故立內等淨名。有餘師言：此內等淨等持尋伺皆無別體。若無別體，心所應不成，心分位殊亦得名心所。雖有此理，非我所宗。如上所言，喜即喜受。以何為證知決定然？汝等豈言喜非喜受，如餘部許，我亦許然。餘部云何許非喜受？謂別有喜是心所法，三定中樂皆是喜受，故喜、喜受其體各異。非三定樂可名喜受，二阿笈摩分明證故。如辯顛倒契經中說：漸無餘滅憂等五根，第三定中無餘滅喜，於第四定無餘滅樂。又餘經說：第四靜慮斷樂斷苦先喜憂沒。故第三定必無喜根，由此喜受是喜非樂。如是所說諸靜慮支，染靜慮中為皆有不？不爾。云何？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) If one says that this admission contradicts the sutra, as the sutra says: all eyes and so on, in full, then, since this sutra says that all fifteen realms are defiled, there is no fault of contradicting the sutra, because it was said with a hidden intention regarding other contact and other bodily consciousness. How can the undefiled dhyana, when manifest, have some factors defiled and some undefiled? They arise at different times, so what fault is there? If one says that, since joy and bliss do not arise together, there should be no five factors or four factors, this too is not a fault, because it is said that there may be joy and bliss factors, as with initial thought and inquiry. If one says that initial thought and inquiry are also admitted to arise together, so the example of not arising together is not established, this is not unestablished, because the coarse and the subtle states of mind are mutually opposed and so should not arise together; and moreover one cannot point out a fault in things that do not arise together. From this it can be said that by gradually reducing two, three and four factors from the first five, the second and the rest are established; by this reasoning the first is said to have five factors, so as to establish the later ones by gradual dropping. Since there is no gradual reduction, perception and the like are not mentioned. Or it might be asked why the first has only five factors established. If one says that these five aid the superiority of the first absorption and so are established as factors, this is unreasonable, because mindfulness and wisdom aid even more than initial thought and inquiry. Although some say so, it was not the doctrine jointly established by the ancient masters, so it should be examined and chosen. It should be said: what dharma is called inner serenity? This absorption is far from the stirring of initial thought and inquiry, and the stream proceeds in purity; this is called inner serenity. If there is stirring of initial thought and inquiry, the stream does not proceed in purity, like a river with waves. If so, it would have no separate substance; how then is it admitted to be one of the eleven entities? It should be said that it is the faculty of faith. That is, when one attains the second dhyana, then in the absorption stage, having left the intermediate state, deep faith arises, and this is called inner serenity. Faith has the characteristic of purity, so the name purity is established. Being apart from outward flowing, it is called inner and even. It is pure and inwardly even, so the name inner serenity is established. Some other masters say: inner serenity, concentration, initial thought and inquiry have no separate substance. If they had no separate substance, mental factors would not be established; but a different phase of mind could also be called a mental factor. Although this reasoning exists, it is not our doctrine. As said above, joy is the sensation of joy. What proof is there that it is certainly so? Do you say that joy is not the sensation of joy? As other schools admit, we also admit so. How do the other schools admit that it is not the sensation of joy? They say that joy is a separate mental factor, and that the bliss in the three absorptions is all the sensation of joy, so joy and the sensation of joy differ in substance. The bliss of the three absorptions cannot be called the sensation of joy, since the two Agamas clearly prove it. As in the sutra on the explanation of inversions: the five faculties beginning with sorrow are extinguished without remainder in due order; in the third absorption joy is extinguished without remainder, and in the fourth absorption bliss is extinguished without remainder. Another sutra says: in the fourth dhyana pleasure and pain are abandoned, and earlier joy and sorrow have vanished. Therefore the third absorption certainly has no faculty of joy, and so the sensation of joy is joy, not bliss. Of the dhyana factors spoken of in this way, do all of them exist in defiled dhyanas? Not so. How then? The verse says:

染如次從初，無喜樂內淨，

In the defiled ones, in order from the first, joy and bliss, inner serenity are lacking,

正念慧捨念，餘說無安捨。

Right mindfulness and wisdom, and equanimity with mindfulness; others say pliancy and equanimity are lacking.

論曰：如上所說諸靜慮支，染靜慮中非皆具有。且有一類隨相說言：初染中無離生喜樂，非離煩惱而得生故。第二染中無內等淨，彼為煩惱所擾濁故。第三染中無正念慧，彼為染樂所迷亂故。第四染中無捨念淨，彼為煩惱所染汙故。有餘師說：初二染中但無輕安，後二染中但無行捨，大善攝故。契經中說：三定有動，第四不動。依何義說？頌曰：

The treatise says: Of the dhyana factors spoken of above, the defiled dhyanas do not possess all. Some say, following the characteristics: in the first defiled dhyana there is no joy and bliss born of detachment, because it does not arise apart from the afflictions. In the second defiled dhyana there is no inner serenity, because it is disturbed and muddied by afflictions. In the third defiled dhyana there are no right mindfulness and wisdom, because it is confused by defiled bliss. In the fourth defiled dhyana there is no purity of equanimity and mindfulness, because it is stained by afflictions. Other masters say: in the first two defiled dhyanas only pliancy is lacking, and in the last two only equanimity in action is lacking, because these are included among the great wholesome factors. The sutra says: the three dhyanas have movement, the fourth is immovable. In what sense is this said? The verse says:

第四名不動，離八災患故，

The fourth is called immovable, because it is free from eight calamities,

八者謂尋伺，四受入出息。

The eight are initial thought and inquiry, the four sensations, and in-breath and out-breath.

論曰：下三靜慮名有動者，有災患故。第四靜慮名不動者，無災患故。災患有八，其八者何？尋、伺、四受、入息、出息。此八災患第四都無，故佛世尊說為不動。然契經說：第四靜慮不為尋伺喜樂所動。有餘師說：第四靜慮如密室燈照而無動。如定靜慮，所有諸受生亦爾不？不爾。云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The lower three dhyanas are called movable because they have calamities. The fourth dhyana is called immovable because it has no calamities. There are eight calamities; what are the eight? Initial thought, inquiry, the four sensations, in-breath and out-breath. The fourth has none of these eight calamities, and so the Buddha, the World-Honored One, called it immovable. However, the sutra says that the fourth dhyana is not moved by initial thought, inquiry, joy and bliss. Other masters say that the fourth dhyana is like a lamp in a closed chamber, shining without moving. Do the sensations arising in birth in the dhyanas also match those in absorption? Not so. How then? The verse says:

生靜慮從初，有喜樂捨受，

In birth in the dhyanas, beginning with the first, there are joy, bliss and equanimity sensations,

及喜捨樂捨，唯捨受如次。

Then joy and equanimity, then bliss and equanimity, and then only equanimity sensation, in order.

論曰：生靜慮中初有三受：一喜受，意識相應；二樂受，三識相應；三捨受，四識相應。第二有二，謂喜與捨，意識相應無有樂受，無餘識故、心悅麁故。第三有二，謂樂與捨，意識相應。第四有一，謂唯捨受，意識相應。是謂定生受有差別。上三靜慮無三識身及無尋伺，如何生彼能見聞觸及起表業？非生彼地無眼識等，但非彼繫。所以者何？頌曰：

The treatise says: In birth in the dhyanas, the first has three sensations: first the sensation of joy, associated with mental consciousness; second the sensation of bliss, associated with the three consciousnesses; third the sensation of equanimity, associated with the four consciousnesses. The second has two, namely joy and equanimity, associated with mental consciousness; there is no sensation of bliss, because there are no other consciousnesses and because the joy of mind is coarse. The third has two, namely bliss and equanimity, associated with mental consciousness. The fourth has one, only the sensation of equanimity, associated with mental consciousness. These are the distinctions of sensation in birth by absorption. In the upper three dhyanas there are no three groups of consciousness and no initial thought or inquiry; how then, when born there, can one see, hear, touch and give rise to expressive karma? It is not that in those realms of birth there is no eye consciousness and so on, but that they do not belong to that realm. Why is this? The verse says:

生上三靜慮，起三識表心，

Born in the upper three dhyanas, the three consciousnesses and the mind of expression arise,

皆初靜慮攝，唯無覆無記。

All belong to the first dhyana, and are only unobstructed neutral.

論曰：生上三地起三識身及發表心皆初定繫。生上起下如起化心，故能見聞觸及發表，此四唯是無覆無記。不起下染，已離染故。不起下善，以下劣故。如是別釋靜慮事已。淨等等至初得云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Those born in the upper three stages who give rise to the three groups of consciousness and the mind of expression all belong to the first absorption. Born above and arising below, it is like arising of a mind of transformation; therefore one can see, hear, touch and give rise to expression. These four are only unobstructed neutral. One does not give rise to lower defiled ones, since one has already been freed from defilement; nor to lower wholesome ones, because they are inferior. Thus the separate explanation of dhyana matters is complete. How are the pure and other attainments first obtained? The verse says:

全不成而得，淨由離染生，

The pure is obtained when it was wholly not possessed, by freedom from defilement or by birth,

無漏由離染，染由生及退。

The undefiled by freedom from defilement; the defiled by birth and by falling back.

論曰：八本等至隨其所應，若全不成而獲得者，淨由離染及由受生，謂在下地離下地染，及從上地生自地時。下七皆然。有頂不爾，唯由離染無由生故。遮何故說全不成言？為遮已成更得少分，如由加行得順決擇分等，及由退得順退分定。即依此義作是問言：頗有淨定由離染得？由離染捨、由退由生，為問亦爾。曰：有，謂順退分。且初靜慮順退分攝，離欲染時得，離自染時捨，退離自染得，退離欲染捨。從上生自得，從自生下捨。餘地所攝，應如理思。無漏但由離染故得，謂聖離下染，得上地無漏。此亦但據全不成者，若先已成，餘時亦得，謂盡智位得無學道，於練根時得學無學。餘加行及退，皆如理應思。豈不由入正性離生，亦名初得無漏等至？此非決定。以次第者，爾時未得根本定故。此中但論決定得者，染由受生及退故得。謂上地沒生下地時得下地染，及於此地離染退時得此地染。何等至後生幾等至？頌曰：

The treatise says: Of the eight fundamental attainments, as appropriate, one obtains them when they were wholly not possessed. The pure is obtained by freedom from defilement and by birth: that is, in a lower stage when one is freed from the defilements of the lower stages, and when one is born into one's own stage from a higher stage. The lower seven are all like this. The Peak of Existence is not so; it is obtained only by freedom from defilement and not by birth, because nothing is higher from which to be born there. Why is the phrase wholly not possessed said? To exclude obtaining a further part of what is already possessed, as one obtains the factors that accord with penetrating insight and the like through the preparatory practice, and as one obtains the absorption that accords with decline through falling back. On this basis the question is posed: is there a pure absorption that is obtained by freedom from defilement, abandoned by freedom from defilement, abandoned by falling back, and abandoned by birth? The question is likewise posed for the other cases. Answer: yes, namely that which accords with decline. Take, for example, what is included in the first dhyana's decline-accordant kind: it is obtained when one is freed from the defilement of the desire realm, abandoned when one is freed from the defilement of one's own stage, obtained when one falls back from freedom from one's own defilement, abandoned when one falls back from freedom from the desire-realm defilement; it is obtained when one is born into one's own stage from above, and abandoned when one is born into a lower stage from one's own. What is included in the other stages should be reflected on in the same way. The undefiled is obtained only by freedom from defilement: that is, when a noble one is freed from the defilements of the lower stages, he obtains the undefiled of the higher stage. This too is said only of what was wholly not possessed; if it was already possessed, it can also be obtained at other times, as in the moment of the knowledge of extinction one obtains the path of no more learning, and in the moment of refining the faculties one obtains the learner and the non-learner. The other preparatory practices and cases of falling back should be reflected on in the same way. Is it not so that by entering the right and fixed state through detachment one also obtains for the first time the undefiled attainment? This is not certain, because in the sequential case one has not at that time yet obtained the fundamental absorption. Here only what is obtained with certainty is discussed. The defiled is obtained by birth and by falling back: that is, when one dies in a higher stage and is born in a lower stage one obtains the defilement of the lower stage, and when one falls back from freedom from defilement in this stage one obtains the defilement of this stage. After which attainment does which attainment arise? The verse says:

無漏次生善，上下至第三，

From the undefiled the wholesome arises next, up and down as far as the third,

淨次生亦然，兼生自地染。

From the pure it arises next in the same way, and also gives rise to the defiled of its own stage.

染生自淨染，並下一地淨，

From the defiled, the pure and defiled of its own stage arise, and the pure of the one stage below,

死淨生一切，染生自下染。

At death the pure gives rise to everything; the defiled gives rise to the defiled of its own and lower stages.

論曰：無漏次生自上下善，善言具攝淨及無漏。然於上下各至第三，遠故無能超生第四。故於無漏七等至中，從初靜慮無間生六，謂自二三各淨無漏。無所有處無間生七，謂自下六上地唯淨。第二靜慮無間生八，謂自上六並下地二。識無邊處無間生九，謂自下六並上地三。第三四空無間生十，謂上下八並自地二。類智無間能生無色。法智不然，依緣下故。從淨等至所生亦然，而各兼生自地染汙故。有頂淨無間生六，謂自淨染、下淨無漏。從初靜慮無間生七。無所有八，第二定九，識處生十，餘生十一。從染等至生自淨染並生次下一地淨定。謂為自地煩惱所逼，於下淨定亦生尊重，故有從染生次下淨。若於染淨能正了知，可能從染轉生下淨；非諸染汙能正了知，如何彼能從染生淨？先願力故。謂先願言：寧得下淨不須上染。先願勢力隨相續轉，故後從染生下淨定。如先立願方趣睡眠，至所期時便能覺寤。無漏與染必不相生，淨俱相生故三有別。如是所說淨染生染，但約在定淨及染說。若生淨染，生染不然，謂命終時從生得淨，一一無間生一切染。若從生染，一一無間能生自地一切下染，不生上者未離下故。所言從淨生無漏者，為一切種皆能生耶？不爾。云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The undefiled gives rise next to the wholesome of its own stage and of higher and lower stages; the word wholesome includes both the pure and the undefiled. However, in the upper and lower directions one can go only as far as the third, because it is far, so none can leap to the fourth. Hence, among the seven undefiled attainments, from the first dhyana without interval six arise, namely the pure and undefiled of its own and of the second and third. From Nothing Whatsoever without interval seven arise, namely six of its own and lower stages and the pure only of the higher stage. From the second dhyana without interval eight arise, namely six of its own and higher stages and two of the lower stage. From Infinity of Consciousness without interval nine arise, namely six of its own and lower stages and three of the higher stage. From the third and fourth formless attainments without interval ten arise, namely eight of upper and lower stages and two of its own. The knowledge of kinds can give rise without interval to the formless attainments; the knowledge of dharmas cannot, because it takes the lower as its object. What arises from pure attainments is likewise so, with the addition that each also gives rise to the defiled of its own stage. From the pure Peak of Existence without interval six arise, namely its own pure and defiled and the pure and undefiled of the lower stage. From the first dhyana without interval seven arise. From Nothing Whatsoever, eight; from the second dhyana, nine; from Infinity of Consciousness, ten; from the others, eleven. From defiled attainments there arise the pure and defiled of its own stage, together with the pure absorption of the next lower stage. That is, pressed by the afflictions of its own stage, one also comes to value the pure absorption of the lower stage, and so there is arising of the pure of the next lower stage from the defiled. If one could correctly know the defiled and the pure, one might be able to turn from the defiled and be born into the lower pure; but since the defiled cannot correctly know, how can one arise from the defiled into the pure? Because of prior vow power. That is, one earlier made the vow: I would rather obtain the lower pure than the higher defiled. The force of the earlier vow follows the mental stream, and so afterward the lower pure absorption arises from the defiled. It is like making a vow before going to sleep and then waking at the appointed time. The undefiled and the defiled certainly do not give rise to each other, while with the pure they arise mutually, so there are three kinds of difference. The arising of the defiled from the pure, spoken of in this way, is said only of the pure and defiled in absorption. As for the arising of the defiled from the pure, it is not so in the case of birth: at the time of death, from the pure obtained by birth, each one gives rise without interval to all the defiled. From the defiled obtained by birth, each one can give rise without interval to all the defiled of its own and lower stages, but not to those of the higher, because one has not yet been freed from the lower. As to what is said of arising of the undefiled from the pure, can all kinds give rise to it? Not so. How then? The verse says:

淨定有四種，謂即順退分，

The pure absorption has four kinds, namely that accordant with decline,

順住順勝進，順決擇分攝。

That accordant with abiding, with progress, and with penetrating insight.

如次順煩惱，自上地無漏，

In order they accord with afflictions, with its own stage, with the higher stage, with the undefiled,

互相望如次，生二三三一。

Looking at each other, in order, they give rise to two, three, three and one.

論曰：諸淨等至總有四種：一順退分攝、二順住分攝、三順勝進分攝、四順決擇分攝。地各有四，有頂唯三，由彼更無上地可趣故，彼地無有順勝進分攝。於此四中唯第四分能生無漏。所以者何？由此四種有如是相，順退分能順煩惱，順住分能順自地，順勝進分能順上地，順決擇分能順無漏，故諸無漏唯從此生。此四相望互相生者，初能生二，謂順退住。第二生三，除順決擇。第三生三，除順退分。第四生一，謂自非餘。如上所言淨及無漏，皆能上下超至第三。行者如何修超等至？頌曰：

The treatise says: The pure attainments are of four kinds in all: first, that accordant with decline; second, that accordant with abiding; third, that accordant with progress; fourth, that accordant with penetrating insight. Each stage has four, while the Peak of Existence has only three, because there is no higher stage to proceed to, so that stage has no kind accordant with progress. Among the four, only the fourth can give rise to the undefiled. Why? Because these four kinds have the following characteristics: the decline-accordant accords with afflictions, the abiding-accordant accords with its own stage, the progress-accordant accords with the higher stage, and the insight-accordant accords with the undefiled. Hence the undefiled arises only from this one. As for how the four give rise to each other, the first can give rise to two, namely the decline-accordant and the abiding-accordant. The second gives rise to three, excluding the insight-accordant. The third gives rise to three, excluding the decline-accordant. The fourth gives rise to one, namely itself and no other. As said above, both the pure and the undefiled can leap up and down as far as the third. How does one practice and cultivate the leaping attainments? The verse says:

二類定順逆，均間次及超，

Two kinds of absorption, forward and reverse, even, alternating, sequential and leaping,

至間超為成，三洲利無學。

Accomplished through alternating leaps; in the three continents, the sharp, the non-learners.

論曰：本善等至分為二類：一者有漏、二者無漏。往上名順，還下名逆。同類名均，異類名間。相隣名次，越一名超。謂觀行者修超定時，先於有漏八地等至順逆均次現前數習，次於無漏七地等至順逆均次現前數習，次於有漏無漏等至順逆間次現前數習，次於有漏順逆均超現前數習，次於無漏順逆均超現前數習，是名修習超加行滿。後於有漏無漏等至順逆間超，名超定成。此中超者唯能超一，遠故無能超入第四。修超等至唯人三洲、不時解脫諸阿羅漢，定自在故、無煩惱故。時解脫者雖無煩惱定不自在，諸見至者雖定自在有餘煩惱，故皆不能修超等至。此諸等至依何身起？頌曰：

The treatise says: The fundamental wholesome attainments are divided into two kinds: first the defiled, second the undefiled. Going upward is called forward, returning downward is called reverse. The same kind is called even; different kinds are called alternating. Adjacent is called sequential; skipping one is called leaping. That is, a practitioner who cultivates the leaping absorption first repeatedly practices the eight defiled stages of attainment, bringing them forth forward and in reverse in an even, sequential manner; next repeatedly practices the seven undefiled stages in the same way; next repeatedly practices the defiled and undefiled attainments, bringing them forth forward and in reverse alternately and sequentially; next repeatedly practices the defiled with forward and reverse leaps of the even kind; next repeatedly practices the undefiled in the same way. This is called the completion of the preparatory practice for leaping. Afterward, the alternating forward and reverse leaps among the defiled and undefiled attainments are called the accomplishment of the leaping absorption. Here one can only leap over one, because it is far, so no one can leap to enter the fourth. The practice of the leaping attainments is found only among human beings in the three continents, and only among non-time-liberated arhats, because they are free in absorption and have no afflictions. The time-liberated, although without afflictions, are not free in absorption, and the view-attainers, although certainly free in absorption, have other afflictions; therefore none of them can cultivate the leaping attainments. On what kind of body do these attainments arise? The verse says:

諸定依自下，非上無用故，

All absorptions arise on one's own or a lower stage, not on a higher, because it is of no use,

唯生有頂聖，起下盡餘惑。

Only a noble one born in the Peak of Existence arises below, to end the other afflictions.

論曰：諸等至起依自下身。依上地身無容起下，上地起下無所用故、自有勝定故、下勢力劣故、已棄捨故、可厭毀故。總相雖然，若委細說聖生有頂必起無漏無所有處，為盡自地所餘煩惱、自無聖道欣樂起故、唯無所有最隣近故，起彼現前盡餘煩惱。此諸等至緣何境生？頌曰：

The treatise says: The attainments arise relying on a body of one's own or a lower stage. Relying on a body of a higher stage, there is no occasion to arise below, because arising from above to below has no use, because one has superior absorption of one's own, because the power of the lower is weak, because it has been abandoned, and because it is to be despised. This is the general account; to speak in detail, a noble one born in the Peak of Existence will certainly give rise to the undefiled Nothing Whatsoever, in order to end the other afflictions of his own stage, because in his own stage there is no noble path in which to delight and arise, and because Nothing Whatsoever is the nearest; manifesting that, he ends the other afflictions. On what objects do these attainments arise? The verse says:

味定緣自繫，淨無漏遍緣，

The tasting absorption takes what belongs to its own stage; the pure and undefiled take all,

根本善無色，不緣下有漏。

The fundamental wholesome formless attainments do not take the defiled of the lower stages.

論曰：味定但緣自地有漏，必無緣下，已離染故。亦不緣上，愛地別故。不緣無漏，應成善故。淨及無漏俱能遍緣自上下地有為無為，皆為境故。有差別者，無記無為非無漏境。根本地攝善無色定，不緣下地諸有漏法，自上地法無不能緣。雖亦能緣下地無漏，緣類智品道，不緣法智品，亦不能緣下地法滅。無色近分亦緣下地，彼無間道必緣下故。味淨無漏三等至中，何等力能斷諸煩惱？頌曰：

The treatise says: The tasting absorption takes only the defiled of its own stage and certainly does not take the lower, because one has been freed from its defilement. It also does not take the higher, because the grounds of craving differ. It does not take the undefiled, because that would make it wholesome. The pure and the undefiled can both take universally the conditioned and unconditioned of their own and the higher and lower stages, since all are objects. There are distinctions: the neutral unconditioned is not an object of the undefiled. The wholesome formless absorptions included in the fundamental stage do not take the defiled dharmas of the lower stages, though there is no dharma of their own or higher stages that they cannot take. Although they can also take the undefiled of the lower stages, they take the path of the knowledge of kinds and not that of the knowledge of dharmas, and they cannot take the extinction of a lower stage. The access stages of the formless attainments also take the lower stages, because their uninterrupted path certainly takes the lower. Among the three attainments of tasting, pure and undefiled, which has the power to end the afflictions? The verse says:

無漏能斷惑，及諸淨近分。

The undefiled can end afflictions, and so can the pure access stages.

論曰：諸無漏定皆能斷惑，本淨尚無能，況諸染能斷。不能斷下，已離染故。不能斷自，自所縛故。不能斷上，以勝己故。若淨近分亦能斷惑，以皆能斷次下地故。中間攝淨亦不能斷。近分有幾；何受相應；於味等三為皆具不；頌曰：

The treatise says: All undefiled absorptions can end afflictions; the fundamental pure ones do not have this ability, still less the defiled ones. They cannot end those of the lower, because one has been freed from them; they cannot end those of their own, because they are bound by their own; they cannot end those of the higher, because those are superior to oneself. If the pure access stages can also end afflictions, it is because they can all end those of the next lower stage. The pure absorption included in the intermediate dhyana cannot end them. How many access stages are there? With what sensation are they associated? Do they all have the three, tasting and the rest? The verse says:

近分八捨淨，初亦聖或三。

The access stages are eight, with equanimity, pure; the first is also noble, or has three.

論曰：諸近分定亦有八種，與八根本為入門故。一切唯一捨受相應，作功用轉故、未離下怖故。此八近分皆淨定攝，唯初近分亦通無漏。皆無有味，離染道故。雖近分心有結生染，而遮定染故作是說。有說：未至定亦有味相應，未起根本亦貪此故，由此未至具有三種。中間靜慮與諸近分為無別義、為亦有殊？義亦有殊，謂諸近分為離下染是入初因，中定不然。復有別義，頌曰：

The treatise says: The access absorptions also number eight, being the entrances to the eight fundamental stages. All are associated only with the sensation of equanimity, because they proceed with effort and because one has not yet been freed from fear of the lower. All eight access stages are included under the pure absorption; only the first access stage also extends to the undefiled. None has tasting, because they are the path of freedom from defilement. Although the mind in the access stage may have the defilement of conception, this is said because it precludes absorption defilement. Some say that the not-yet-reached absorption also has association with tasting, because one is attached to it without having yet produced the fundamental; hence the not-yet-reached has all three kinds. Are the intermediate dhyana and the access stages without difference in meaning, or do they differ? They differ in meaning: the access stages are the cause of entering the first stage in order to be freed from the defilements of the lower, whereas the intermediate is not so. There is another distinction. The verse says:

中靜慮無尋，具三唯捨受。

The intermediate dhyana has no initial thought, has the three, and only equanimity sensation.

論曰：初本近分尋伺相應，上七定中皆無尋伺，唯中靜慮有伺無尋，故彼勝初未及第二，依此義故立中間名。由此上無中間靜慮，一地升降無如此故。此定具有味等三種，以有勝德可愛味故。同諸近分唯捨相應，非喜相應功用轉故。由此說是苦通行攝。此定能招大梵處果，多修習者為大梵故。已說等至。云何等持？經說等持總有三種：一有尋有伺、二無尋唯伺、三無尋無伺。其相云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: In the first fundamental stage and its access stage, initial thought and inquiry are associated. In the upper seven absorptions there are neither; only the intermediate dhyana has inquiry without initial thought. It is therefore superior to the first and not yet the second, and the name intermediate is established on this basis. Hence above there is no intermediate dhyana, because there is no ascending or descending within a single stage. This absorption has the three kinds, tasting and the rest, because it has superior virtue and is lovely and savored. Like the access stages, it is associated only with equanimity, not with joy, because it proceeds with effort. It is therefore said to belong to the painful way of practice. This absorption can bring about the fruit of the Mahabrahma abode; one who practices it much becomes a Mahabrahma. The attainments have been explained. What of concentrations? The sutra says there are three kinds of concentration in all: first, with initial thought and inquiry; second, without initial thought but with inquiry only; third, without initial thought and without inquiry. What are their characteristics? The verse says:

初下有尋伺，中唯伺上無。

The first and below have initial thought and inquiry; the middle has inquiry only, and above there is none.

論曰：有尋有伺三摩地者，謂與尋伺相應等持，此初靜慮及未至攝。無尋唯伺三摩地者，謂唯與伺相應等持，此即靜慮中間地攝。無尋無伺三摩地者，謂非尋伺相應等持，此從第二靜慮近分乃至非想非非想攝。契經復說三種等持：一空、二無願、三無相。其相云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The samadhi with initial thought and inquiry is the concentration associated with initial thought and inquiry; it is included in the first dhyana and the not-yet-reached stage. The samadhi without initial thought but with inquiry only is the concentration associated only with inquiry; it is included in the intermediate dhyana stage. The samadhi without initial thought and without inquiry is the concentration not associated with initial thought and inquiry; it extends from the access stage of the second dhyana up to Neither-Perception-nor-Non-Perception. The sutra also speaks of three kinds of concentration: first emptiness, second wishlessness, third signlessness. What are their characteristics? The verse says:

空謂空非我，無相謂滅四，

Emptiness is emptiness and non-self; signlessness is the four aspects of cessation,

無願謂餘十，諦行相相應，

Wishlessness is the other ten; they accord with the aspects of the truths,

此通淨無漏，無漏三脫門。

These extend to the pure and undefiled; the undefiled are the three gates of liberation.

論曰：空三摩地，謂空、非我二種行相相應等持。無相三摩地，謂緣滅諦四種行相相應等持。涅槃離十相，故名無相，緣彼三摩地得無相名。十相者何？謂色等五、男女二種、三有為相。無願三摩地，謂緣餘諦十種行相相應等持，非常苦因可厭患故，道如船筏必應捨故。能緣彼定得無願名，皆為超過現所對故。空非我相非所厭捨，以與涅槃相相似故。此三各二種，謂淨及無漏，世出世間等持別故。世間攝者通十一地，出世攝者唯通九地。於中無漏者名三解脫門，能與涅槃為入門故。契經復說三重等持：一空空、二無願無願、三無相無相。其相云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The samadhi of emptiness is the concentration associated with the two aspects of emptiness and non-self. The samadhi of signlessness is the concentration associated with the four aspects that take the truth of cessation as object. Nirvana is free from ten signs, and so it is called signless, and the samadhi that takes it as object obtains the name signlessness. What are the ten signs? They are the five beginning with form, the two of male and female, and the three characteristics of the conditioned. The samadhi of wishlessness is the concentration associated with the ten aspects that take the other truths as object: because impermanence and suffering and the cause are to be loathed, and the path, like a raft, must be abandoned. The concentration able to take them as object obtains the name wishlessness, because all of them are meant to be transcended in what is directly faced. The aspects of emptiness and non-self are not to be loathed and abandoned, because they resemble the aspect of nirvana. Each of these three is of two kinds, pure and undefiled, since worldly and supramundane concentrations differ. The worldly kind extends through eleven stages; the supramundane kind extends only through nine stages. Among them the undefiled ones are called the three gates of liberation, because they can serve as entrances to nirvana. The sutra also speaks of threefold concentration: first emptiness of emptiness, second wishlessness of wishlessness, third signlessness of signlessness. What are their characteristics? The verse says:

重二緣無學，取空非常相，

The doubled two take the non-learner, grasping the aspects of emptiness and impermanence,

後緣無相定，非擇滅為靜，

The last takes the signless absorption, as non-analytic cessation, taken as tranquil,

有漏人不時，離上七近分。

The defiled, human, not time-liberated, apart from the seven upper access stages.

論曰：此三等持，緣前空等取空等相，故立空空等名。空空等持緣前無學空三摩地取彼空相，空相順厭勝非我故。無願無願緣前無學無願等持取非常相，不取苦因等，非無漏相故，不取道等，為厭捨故。無相無相即緣無學無相三摩地非擇滅為境，以無漏法無擇滅故，但取靜相非滅妙離，濫非常滅故、是無記性故、非離繫果故。此三等持唯是有漏，厭聖道故。無漏不然，唯三洲人不時解脫能起如是重三摩地。依十一地，除七近分，謂欲未至八本中間。契經復說四修等持：一為住現法樂、二為得勝知見、三為得分別慧、四為諸漏永盡修三摩地。其相云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: These three concentrations take the earlier emptiness and so on and grasp the aspects of emptiness and so on, and so the names emptiness of emptiness and the rest are established. The concentration of emptiness of emptiness takes the earlier non-learner's samadhi of emptiness and grasps its aspect of emptiness; the aspect of emptiness is superior in leading to loathing, being non-self. Wishlessness of wishlessness takes the earlier non-learner's concentration of wishlessness and grasps its aspect of impermanence; it does not grasp the cause of suffering and the like, because they are not aspects of the undefiled, and it does not grasp the path and the like, because they are to be loathed and abandoned. Signlessness of signlessness takes the earlier non-learner's samadhi of signlessness, and non-analytic cessation, as its object; because the undefiled dharmas have no analytic cessation, it grasps only the aspect of tranquility, and not the aspects of cessation, excellence and departure, because these would be confused with impermanent cessation, because it is of neutral nature, and because it is not a fruit of disjunction. These three concentrations are only defiled, because they loathe the noble path. The undefiled is not so. Only human beings of the three continents who are not time-liberated can give rise to this threefold samadhi. They rely on eleven stages, excluding the seven access stages, namely the desire realm, the not-yet-reached, the eight fundamental stages and the intermediate. The sutra also speaks of four cultivations of concentration: first, cultivating samadhi in order to dwell in bliss in this very life; second, to obtain superior knowledge and vision; third, to obtain discriminating wisdom; fourth, to bring about the complete end of the outflows. What are their characteristics? The verse says:

為得現法樂，修諸善靜慮；

To obtain bliss in this very life, one cultivates all wholesome dhyanas;

為得勝知見，修淨天眼通；

To obtain superior knowledge and vision, one cultivates the pure divine eye;

為得分別慧，修諸加行善；

To obtain discriminating wisdom, one cultivates all wholesome preparatory practices;

為得諸漏盡，脩金剛喻定。

To obtain the end of the outflows, one cultivates the vajra-like absorption.

論曰：如契經說：有修等持若習若修若多所作得現樂住，乃至廣說。善言通攝淨及無漏。修諸善靜慮得住現法樂，而經但說初靜慮者，舉初顯後，理實通餘。不言為住後法樂者，以後法樂非定住故，謂或退墮、或上受生、或般涅槃便不住故。若依諸定修天眼通，便能獲得殊勝知見。若修三界諸加行善及無漏善，得分別慧。若脩金剛喻定，便得諸漏永盡。理實修此通依諸地，而契經但說第四靜慮者，傳說世尊依自說故。

The treatise says: As the sutra says: there is one who cultivates concentration, practices it, develops it, and does much with it, and so obtains a pleasant abiding, and so on, in full. The word wholesome includes both the pure and the undefiled. By cultivating all wholesome dhyanas one obtains dwelling in bliss in this very life, and although the sutra mentions only the first dhyana, it mentions the first to show the later ones, and in truth it extends to the others. It does not speak of dwelling in bliss in future lives, because bliss in future lives is not an abiding in absorption: one may fall back, or be reborn higher, or enter parinirvana, and so no longer abide there. If one cultivates the divine eye relying on any of the absorptions, one can obtain superior knowledge and vision. If one cultivates all the wholesome preparatory practices of the three realms and the undefiled wholesome, one obtains discriminating wisdom. If one cultivates the vajra-like absorption, one obtains the complete end of the outflows. In truth, this cultivation relies on all stages, but the sutra mentions only the fourth dhyana; it is said that the World-Honored One spoke according to his own case.

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by the Tripitaka Master Xuanzang by imperial command

分別定品第八之二

Chapter 8, Part 2: Analysis of Meditative Absorption

如是已說所依止定，當辯依定所起功德。諸功德中先辯無量。頌曰：

Having thus explained the absorptions on which one relies, we shall now discuss the merits that arise in dependence on absorption. Among the merits, we first discuss the immeasurables. The verse says:

無量有四種，對治瞋等故，

The immeasurables are four, as antidotes to hatred and the like,

慈悲無瞋性，喜喜捨無貪。

Loving-kindness and compassion are non-hatred; joy is joy, and equanimity is non-greed.

此行相如次，與樂及拔苦，

Their aspects are, in order, giving happiness and removing suffering,

欣慰有情等，緣欲界有情。

Rejoicing in beings, and so on; they take the beings of the desire realm as object.

喜初二靜慮，餘六或五十，

Joy is in the first two dhyanas; the other six, or five, or ten,

不能斷諸惑，人起定成三。

Cannot end afflictions; humans give rise to them, and one obtains three.

論曰：無量有四，一慈、二悲、三喜、四捨。言無量者，無量有情為所緣故、引無量福故、感無量果故。此何緣故唯有四種？對治四種多行障故。何謂四障？謂諸瞋害、不欣慰、欲貪、瞋。治此如次，建立慈等。不淨與捨俱治欲貪，斯有何別？毘婆沙說：欲貪有二，一色、二婬，不淨與捨如次能治。理實不淨能治婬貪，餘親友貪捨能對治。四中初二體是無瞋，理實應言悲是不害，喜即喜受，捨即無貪，若並眷屬五蘊為體。若捨無貪性，如何能治瞋？此所治瞋，貪所引故，理實應用二法為體。此四無量行相別者，云何當令諸有情類得如是樂？如是思惟入慈等至。云何當令諸有情類離如是苦？如是思惟入悲等至。諸有情類得樂離苦豈不快哉！如是思惟入喜等至。諸有情類平等平等無有親怨。如是思惟入捨等至。此四無量不能令他實得樂等，寧非顛倒？願欲令彼得樂等故，或阿世耶無顛倒故，與勝解想相應起故。設是顛倒，復有何失？若應非善，理則不然，此與善根相應起故。若應引惡，理亦不然，由此力能治瞋等故。此緣欲界一切有情，能治緣彼瞋等障故。然契經說：修習慈等，思惟一方一切世界。此經舉器以顯器中。第三但依初二靜慮，喜受攝故，餘定地無。所餘三種通依六地，謂四靜慮、未至、中間。或有欲令唯依五地，謂除未至，是容豫德，已離欲者方能起故。或有欲令此四無量隨其所應通依十地，謂欲四本近分中間，此意欲令定不定地根本加行皆無量攝。前雖說此能治四障，而不能令諸惑得斷，有漏根本靜慮攝故、勝解作意相應起故、遍緣一切有情境故。此加行位制伏瞋等，或此能令已斷更遠故。前說此能治四障，謂欲未至亦有慈等，似所修成根本無量。由此制伏瞋等障已，引斷道生能斷諸惑，諸惑斷已離染位中，方得根本四種無量。於此後位雖遇強緣，而非瞋等之所蔽伏。初習業位云何修慈？

The treatise says: There are four immeasurables: first loving-kindness, second compassion, third joy, fourth equanimity. They are called immeasurable because they take immeasurable beings as object, because they draw immeasurable merit, and because they bring about immeasurable fruit. For what reason are there only four? Because they counteract the four obstacles that most often occur: hatred and harming, lack of rejoicing, desire-greed, and anger. To counteract these, loving-kindness and the others are established in order. The contemplation of impurity and equanimity both counteract desire-greed; what is the difference? The Vibhasha says that desire-greed is of two kinds, of form and of sexual desire, and impurity and equanimity counteract them respectively. In truth, impurity counteracts sexual greed, while equanimity counteracts greed for relatives and friends. Of the four, the first two have the nature of non-hatred; in truth it should be said that compassion is non-harming, joy is the sensation of joy, and equanimity is non-greed, and if the retinue is included, the five aggregates are their substance. If equanimity has the nature of non-greed, how can it counteract hatred? The hatred to be counteracted is that induced by greed; in truth it should be said that two dharmas are its substance. The aspects of these four immeasurables differ. How may all beings obtain such happiness? Thinking thus, one enters the attainment of loving-kindness. How may all beings be freed from such suffering? Thinking thus, one enters the attainment of compassion. How delightful it is that beings obtain happiness and are freed from suffering! Thinking thus, one enters the attainment of joy. All beings are equal, with no distinction between friend and enemy. Thinking thus, one enters the attainment of equanimity. These four immeasurables cannot actually make others obtain happiness and so on; how is this not an inversion? Because one wishes them to obtain happiness and so on, or because the intention is not inverted, or because they arise in association with the perception of resolve. Even if it were an inversion, what would be the fault? If one says it should not be wholesome, that is not so, since it arises in association with wholesome roots. If one says it should lead to evil, that too is not so, since by its power it counteracts hatred and the like. They take all beings of the desire realm as object, and can counteract the obstacles of hatred and the like that take those beings as object. However, the sutra says: cultivating loving-kindness and so on, one contemplates one direction, all the worlds. This sutra mentions the vessel to show what is in the vessel. The third depends only on the first two dhyanas, because it is included in the sensation of joy, and the other stages have none. The other three kinds extend through six stages, namely the four dhyanas, the not-yet-reached and the intermediate. Some wish it to rely only on five stages, excluding the not-yet-reached, since it is an accessory virtue, and only one who has been freed from desire can give rise to it. Some wish that these four immeasurables, as appropriate, rely on ten stages, namely the desire realm, the four fundamental stages, the access stages and the intermediate; their meaning is that both the fixed and unfixed stages, the fundamental and the preparatory, are included among the immeasurables. Although it was said before that these counteract the four obstacles, they cannot end the afflictions, because they are included in the defiled fundamental dhyanas, because they arise in association with resolve and attention, and because they take all beings as object. In the preparatory stage they subdue hatred and the like, or they make what has already been ended more remote. As said before, they counteract the four obstacles; that is, in the desire realm and the not-yet-reached there is also loving-kindness and so on, resembling the cultivated fundamental immeasurables. After subduing hatred and the like in this way, one induces the path of ending and so ends the afflictions; once the afflictions are ended, in the stage of freedom from defilement, one finally obtains the four fundamental immeasurables. In this later stage, even when one meets strong conditions, one is not overcome by hatred and the like. How does one cultivate loving-kindness in the initial stage of practice?

謂先思惟自所受樂，或聞說佛菩薩聲聞及獨覺等所受快樂，便作是念：願諸有情一切等受如是快樂。若彼本來煩惱增盛，不能如是平等運心，應於有情分為三品，所謂親友、處中、怨讐。親復分三，謂上、中、下；中品唯一；怨亦分三，謂下、中、上，總成七品。分品別已，先於上親發起真誠與樂勝解。此願成已，於中下親亦漸次修如是勝解。於親三品得平等已，次於中品、下中上怨亦漸次修如是勝解，由數習力能於上怨起與樂願與上親等。修此勝解既得無退，次於所緣漸修令廣，謂漸運想思惟一邑一國一方一切世界，與樂行相無不遍滿，是為修習慈無量成。若於有情樂求德者能修慈定令速疾成，非於有情樂求失者，以斷善者有德可錄，麟喻獨覺有失可取，先福罪果現可見故。修悲喜法准此應知。謂觀有情沒眾苦海，便願令彼皆得解脫，及想有情得樂離苦，便深欣慰實為樂哉。修捨最初從處中起，漸次乃至能於上親起平等心與處中等。此四無量人起非餘，隨得一時必成三種。生第三定等，唯不成喜故。已辯無量，次辯解脫。頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) One first contemplates the happiness one has experienced oneself, or hears of the happiness experienced by buddhas, bodhisattvas, shravakas and pratyekabuddhas, and then thinks: may all beings equally experience such happiness. If one's afflictions are by nature strong and one cannot direct the mind equally in this way, one should divide beings into three classes, namely relatives and friends, neutral persons, and enemies. Relatives are further divided into three, superior, middling and inferior; the neutral are one only; enemies are also divided into three, inferior, middling and superior, making seven classes in all. Having made the distinctions, one first gives rise toward the superior relatives to a sincere resolve to give happiness. When this wish is accomplished, one gradually cultivates the same resolve toward middling and inferior relatives. Having attained equality toward the three classes of relatives, one next gradually cultivates the same resolve toward the neutral, and the inferior, middling and superior enemies; by the power of repeated practice one can give rise toward the superior enemy to the wish to give happiness equal to that toward the superior relatives. Once this resolve has been cultivated without regression, one next gradually widens the object: one gradually extends the thought to a village, a country, a region, and all the worlds, so that the aspect of giving happiness pervades everywhere without exception. This is called the accomplishment of cultivating the immeasurable of loving-kindness. For beings who delight in seeking virtue, one can cultivate the absorption of loving-kindness and quickly accomplish it; for beings who delight in seeking faults it is not so, since one who has cut off wholesome roots has some virtue worth recording, while the rhinoceros-like pratyekabuddha has faults that can be taken, and the fruits of earlier merit and sin are evident. The cultivation of compassion and joy should be understood by analogy. That is, one contemplates beings sunk in the sea of many sufferings and so wishes them all to be liberated, and thinks of beings as obtaining happiness and being freed from suffering and so deeply rejoices that it is truly happy. In cultivating equanimity, one begins with the neutral and gradually proceeds until one can give rise to an equal mind toward the superior relatives, equal to that toward the neutral. A human being gives rise to these four immeasurables and no other being does; whenever one obtains one, one necessarily accomplishes three. Those born in the third dhyana and so on do not accomplish joy only. The immeasurables have been explained; next we discuss the liberations. The verse says:

解脫有八種，前三無貪性，

There are eight liberations; the first three have the nature of non-greed,

二二一一定，四無色定善，

Two, two, one, one are absorptions; the four formless are wholesome absorptions,

滅受想解脫，微微無間生，

The liberation of cessation of sensation and perception, subtle and subtler, arises without interval,

由自地淨心，及下無漏出，

Emerging from the pure mind of its own stage and from the lower undefiled,

三境欲可見，四境類品道，

Three take as object the desire realm and the visible; four take as object the kinds and the path,

自上苦集滅，非擇滅虛空。

Their own and the higher stages' suffering, origin and cessation, and non-analytic cessation and space.

論曰：解脫有八：一內有色想觀外色解脫、二內無色想觀外色解脫、三淨解脫身作證具足住、四無色定為次四解脫、滅受想定為第八解脫。八中前三無貪為性，近治貪故。然契經中說想觀者，想觀增故。三中初二不淨相轉，作青瘀等諸行相故。第三解脫清淨相轉，作淨光鮮行相轉故。三並助伴皆五蘊性。初二解脫，一一通依初二靜慮，能治欲界初靜慮中顯色貪故。第三解脫依後靜慮，離八災患心澄淨故。餘地亦有相似解脫而不建立，非增上故。次四解脫如其次第，以四無色定善為性。非無記染，非解脫故。亦非散善，性微劣故。彼散善者，如命終心。有說：餘時亦有散善。近分解脫道，亦得解脫名。無間不然，以緣下故。彼要背下地，方名解脫故。然於餘處多分唯說彼根本地名解脫者，以近分中非全分故。第八解脫即滅盡定，彼自性等如先已說。厭背受想而起此故，或總厭背有所緣故，此滅盡定得解脫名。有說：由此解脫定障，微微心後此定現前。前對想心已名微細，此更微細故曰微微。次如是心入滅盡定，從滅定出，或起有頂淨定心，或即能起無所有處無漏心。如是入心唯是有漏，通從有漏無漏心出。八中前三唯以欲界色處為境。有差別者，二境可憎、一境可愛。次四解脫各以自上苦集滅諦，及一切地類智品道，彼非擇滅及與虛空為所緣境。第三靜慮寧無解脫？第三定中無色貪故，自地妙樂所動亂故。行者何緣修淨解脫？為欲令心暫欣悅故。前不淨觀令心沈慼，今修淨觀策發令欣。或為審知自堪能故，謂前所修不淨解脫為成不成？若觀淨相煩惱不起，彼方成故。由二緣故，諸瑜伽師修解脫等，一為諸惑已斷更遠；二為於定得勝自在，故能引起無諍等德及聖神通，由此便能轉變諸事起留捨等種種作用。何故經中第三第八說身作證，非餘六邪？以於八中此二勝故，於二界中各在邊故。已辯解脫，次辯勝處。

The treatise says: There are eight liberations: first, with form oneself, contemplating external forms; second, without perceiving form oneself, contemplating external forms; third, the liberation of the pure, realizing it in the body and dwelling in it fully; the four formless attainments as the next four liberations; and the attainment of cessation of feeling and perception as the eighth liberation. Among the eight, the first three have non-greed as their nature, because they closely counteract greed. Yet the sutra speaks of "perceiving and contemplating" because the perception and contemplation are prominent. Of the three, the first two operate with the aspect of impurity, making the aspects of livid, bluish and so on. The third liberation operates with the aspect of purity, making the aspect of pure, bright and fresh. The three and their accompaniments are all of the nature of the five aggregates. The first two liberations each depend on the first two dhyanas, since they counteract greed for visible forms in the first dhyana of the desire realm. The third liberation depends on the last dhyana, because, apart from the eight calamities, the mind is clear and pure. In other levels there are also similar liberations that are not established, since they are not dominant. The next four liberations, in order, have the wholesome nature of the four formless attainments. They are not neutral or defiled, since those are not liberation. They are also not distracted good, since its nature is weak. As for such distracted good, it is like the mind at death. Some say: At other times too there is distracted good. The liberation path of the access stage is also called liberation. The uninterrupted path is not so, because it takes the lower as its object. Only when one turns away from the lower level is it called liberation. However, in other places, for the most part, only the root level is called liberation, because in the access stage it is not a full part. The eighth liberation is the attainment of cessation, whose own nature and so on were explained before. It is because one is weary of and turns away from feeling and perception that this arises, or because one is wholly weary of and turns away from what has objects, that this attainment of cessation receives the name liberation. Some say: By this liberation, as a concentration obstruction, after a subtle-subtle mind this attainment appears. The earlier mind facing perception was already called subtle, and this is more subtle and so is called subtle-subtle. After such a mind one enters the attainment of cessation; emerging from the cessation, one either gives rise to the pure concentration mind of the peak of existence, or can at once give rise to the undefiled mind of the sphere of nothing whatsoever. The mind of entering is only with outflows, while the mind of emerging covers both with outflows and without outflows. Among the eight, the first three take only the form sphere of the desire realm as object. With differences: two objects are loathsome and one is lovely. The next four liberations each take as objects the truths of suffering, origin and cessation of their own and higher levels, the knowledge of kinds and path of all levels, and cessation not through discrimination and space. Is there no liberation in the third dhyana? In the third concentration there is no greed for form, because one is disturbed by the wonderful bliss of one's own level. Why do practitioners cultivate the pure liberation? In order to make the mind briefly delighted: the earlier contemplation of the impure makes the mind sunk in distress, while now cultivating the contemplation of purity spurs it to delight. Or in order to know clearly one's own capacity: whether the impure liberation cultivated earlier has succeeded or not, since if afflictions do not arise when one contemplates pure signs, then it has succeeded. For two reasons practitioners of yoga cultivate the liberations and so on: first, afflictions already cut off become more remote; second, one obtains superior sovereignty in concentration, and so can bring forth virtues such as non-contention and noble spiritual powers, and by this can transform various things and perform many functions such as arising, remaining and abandoning. Why does the sutra say "realize in the body" for the third and the eighth and not for the other six? Because these two are the most excellent among the eight, and each lies at the border of the two realms. The liberations have been explained; next the stages of mastery are explained.

頌曰：

The verse says:

勝處有八種，二如初解脫，

There are eight stages of mastery, two are like the first liberation,

次二如第二，後四如第三。

The next two are like the second, the last four are like the third.

論曰：勝處有八：一內有色想觀外色少、二內有色想觀外色多、三內無色想觀外色少、四內無色想觀外色多、內無色想觀外青黃赤白為四，足前成八。八中初二如初解脫，次二如第二解脫，後四如第三解脫。若爾，八勝處何殊三解脫？前修解脫唯能棄背，後修勝處能制所緣，隨所樂觀惑終不起。已辯勝處，次辯遍處。頌曰：

The treatise says: There are eight stages of mastery: first, with form oneself, contemplating external forms as few; second, with form oneself, contemplating external forms as many; third, without perceiving form oneself, contemplating external forms as few; fourth, without perceiving form oneself, contemplating external forms as many; and without perceiving form oneself, contemplating external blue, yellow, red and white, four, which added to the earlier make eight. Among the eight, the first two are like the first liberation, the next two are like the second liberation, and the last four are like the third liberation. If so, how do the eight stages of mastery differ from the three liberations? The earlier cultivated liberations can only abandon and turn away, whereas the later cultivated stages of mastery can control the object, so that afflictions do not arise in the end however one may wish to contemplate. The stages of mastery have been explained; next the all-encompassing bases are explained. The verse says:

遍處有十種，八如淨解脫，

There are ten all-encompassing bases, eight are like the pure liberation,

後二淨無色，緣自地四蘊。

The last two are pure formless, taking the four aggregates of their own level as object.

論曰：遍處有十，謂周遍觀地、水、火、風、青、黃、赤、白及空與識二無邊處。於一切處周遍觀察無有間隙，故名遍處。十中前八如淨解脫，謂八自性皆是無貪；若並助伴五蘊為性，依第四靜慮，緣欲可見色。有餘師說：唯風遍處緣所觸中風界為境，後二遍處如次空識二淨無色為其自性，各緣自地四蘊為境。應知此中修觀行者，從諸解脫入諸勝處，從諸勝處入諸遍處，以後後起勝前前故。此解脫等三門功德，為由何得？依何身起？頌曰：

The treatise says: There are ten all-encompassing bases, namely contemplating earth, water, fire, wind, blue, yellow, red, white, and the two bases of space and consciousness as limitless. They are called all-encompassing bases because one contemplates all places pervasively without gaps. Among the ten, the first eight are like the pure liberation, that is, the eight in their own nature are all non-greed; including their accompaniments, they have the five aggregates as their nature, depend on the fourth dhyana, and take visible forms of the desire realm as object. Other masters say: Only the all-encompassing base of wind takes the wind element among the tangibles as its object; the last two all-encompassing bases have as their own nature the pure formless attainments of space and consciousness in order, each taking the four aggregates of its own level as object. One should know that practitioners of contemplation here enter the stages of mastery from the liberations, and enter the all-encompassing bases from the stages of mastery, because each later arising is superior to the earlier. These merits of the three groups beginning with liberation, by what are they obtained, and on what body do they arise? The verse says:

滅定如先辯，餘皆通二得，

The attainment of cessation was explained before, the others all can be obtained in two ways,

無色依三界，餘唯人趣起。

The formless depend on the three realms, the others arise only in the human destiny.

論曰：第八解脫如先已辯，以即是前滅盡定故。餘解脫等通由二得，謂由離染及加行得，以有曾習未曾習故。四無色解脫、二無色遍處，一一通依三界身起，餘唯人起。由教力故，異生及聖皆能現起。諸有生在色無色界起靜慮無色，由何等別緣？頌曰：

The treatise says: The eighth liberation was explained before, since it is the earlier attainment of cessation. The other liberations and so on can be obtained in two ways, namely by freedom from defilement and by application, because there are those previously practiced and those not previously practiced. The four formless liberations and the two formless all-encompassing bases each can arise depending on bodies of the three realms; the others arise only in humans. By the power of teaching, both ordinary beings and noble ones can bring them to appear. Those born in the form and formless realms who give rise to dhyana and formless attainments, by what different conditions? The verse says:

二界由因業，能起無色定，

In the two realms by the force of cause and karma, one can give rise to formless concentration,

色界起靜慮，亦由法爾力。

In the form realm dhyana arises also by the power of nature.

論曰：生上二界總由三緣，能進引生色無色定：一由因力，謂於先時近及數修為起因故。二由業力，謂先曾造感上地生順後受業，彼業異熟將起現前，勢力能令進起彼定。以若未離下地煩惱，必定無容生上地故。三法爾力，謂器世界將欲壞時，下地有情法爾能起上地靜慮。以於此位所有善法，由法爾力皆增盛故。諸有生在上二界中起無色定，由因業力，非法爾力，無雲等天不為三災之所壞故。生在色界起靜慮時，由上二緣及法爾力。若生欲界起上定時，一一應知皆由教力。前來分別種種法門，皆為弘持世尊正法。何謂正法？當住幾時？頌曰：

The treatise says: Those born in the upper two realms can advance and give rise to form and formless concentrations through three conditions in all: first, by the power of cause, namely because earlier one cultivated closely and frequently as a cause of arising. Second, by the power of karma, namely having earlier made karma that brings birth in an upper level and is to be experienced later; the maturation of that karma is about to appear, and its force can make one advance and give rise to that concentration, since if one has not become free of the afflictions of the lower levels there is certainly no room to be born in an upper level. Third, by the power of nature, namely when the world as vessel is about to be destroyed, beings of the lower levels naturally can give rise to dhyanas of the upper levels, because all wholesome dharmas at that time are increased by the power of nature. Those born in the upper two realms who give rise to formless concentration do so by the power of cause and karma, not by the power of nature, since the Anabhraka heavens and the rest are not destroyed by the three calamities. Those born in the form realm who give rise to dhyana do so by the two earlier conditions and the power of nature. If one is born in the desire realm and gives rise to upper concentration, one should know that each is entirely by the power of teaching. The various approaches to dharmas distinguished above are all for upholding the true Dharma of the World-Honored One. What is the true Dharma, and how long will it remain? The verse says:

佛正法有二，謂教證為體，

The Buddha's true Dharma is of two kinds, with teaching and realization as its substance,

有持說行者，此便住世間。

When there are those who uphold, expound and practice it, it abides in the world.

論曰：世尊正法體有二種，一教、二證。教謂契經、調伏、對法，證謂三乘菩提分法。有能受持及正說者，佛正教法便住世間。有能依教正修行者，佛正證法便住世間。故隨三人住世時量，應知正法住爾所時。聖教總言唯住千載，有釋證法唯住千年，教法住時復過於此。此論依攝阿毘達磨，為依何理釋對法耶？頌曰：

The treatise says: The true Dharma of the World-Honored One is of two kinds, first teaching and second realization. Teaching is the sutras, the vinaya and the abhidharma; realization is the factors of enlightenment of the three vehicles. When there are those who can receive, uphold and rightly expound it, the Buddha's true teaching abides in the world. When there are those who can practice rightly in reliance on the teaching, the Buddha's true realization abides in the world. Therefore according to the time the three kinds of persons remain in the world, one should know the true Dharma abides for that long. The noble teaching generally says it abides only a thousand years; some explain that the Dharma of realization abides only a thousand years, and the Dharma of teaching abides longer than this. This treatise, which relies on and summarizes the Abhidharma, explains the Abhidharma on the basis of what principle? The verse says:

迦濕彌羅議理成，我多依彼釋對法，

The principles discussed in Kashmir are well established, and I mostly rely on them to explain the Abhidharma,

少有貶量為我失，判法正理在牟尼。

If there is slight disparagement, it is my own fault; the true principle for judging the Dharma lies with the Sage.

論曰：迦濕彌羅國毘婆沙師議阿毘達磨理善成立，我多依彼釋對法宗，少有貶量為我過失。判法正理唯在世尊，及諸如來大聖弟子。

The treatise says: The Vibhasa masters of Kashmir have well established the principles of the Abhidharma, and I mostly rely on them to explain the Abhidharma school; if there is any slight disparagement it is my own fault. The true principle for judging the Dharma lies only with the World-Honored One and the great noble disciples of the Tathagata.

大師世眼久已閉，堪為證者多散滅，

The Great Teacher, the eye of the world, has long since closed, and those who could serve as witnesses have mostly scattered and perished,

不見真理無制人，由鄙尋思亂聖教。

Not seeing the true principle and with no one to restrain them, vulgar speculations confuse the noble teaching.

自覺已歸勝寂靜，持彼教者多隨滅，

The self-awakened one has returned to supreme tranquility, and those who uphold his teaching mostly follow in extinction,

世無依怙喪眾德，無鉤制惑隨意轉。

The world has no refuge and has lost many virtues, with no hook to restrain them, the afflictions turn as they please.

既知如來正法壽，漸次淪亡如至喉，

Knowing that the life of the Tathagata's true Dharma gradually declines as if reaching the throat,

是諸煩惱力增時，應求解脫勿放逸。

When the power of the afflictions grows, one should seek liberation and not be heedless.

破執我品第九之一

Chapter 9, Refutation of the Doctrine of Self, Part 1

越此依餘，豈無解脫？理必無有。所以者何？虛妄我執所迷亂故。謂此法外諸所執我，非即於蘊相續假立執有真實離蘊我故。由我執力諸煩惱生，三有輪迴無容解脫。以何為證？知諸我名，唯召蘊相續，非別目我體。於彼所計離蘊我中，無有真實現比量故。謂若我體別有實物，如餘有法。若無障緣，應現量得如六境意，或比量得如五色根。言五色根比量得者，如世現見，雖有眾緣，由闕別緣，果便非有，不闕便有，如種生芽。如是亦見，雖有現境作意等緣，而諸盲聾不盲聾等識不起起，定知別緣有闕不闕。此別緣者即眼等根，如是名為色根比量。於離蘊我二量都無，由此證知無真我體。然犢子部執有補特伽羅，其體與蘊不一不異。此應思擇，為實為假。實有假有相別云何？別有事物是實有相，如色聲等。但有聚集是假有相，如乳酪等。許實許假各有何失？體若是實應與蘊異，有別性故，如別別蘊。又有實體必應有因，或應是無為，便同外道見。又應無用，徒執實有。體若是假，便同我說。非我所立補特伽羅，如仁所徵實有假有？但可依內現在世攝有執受諸蘊立補特伽羅。如是謬言，於義未顯。我猶不了，如何名依？若攬諸蘊是此依義，既攬諸蘊成補特伽羅，則補特伽羅應成假有，如乳酪等攬色等成。若因諸蘊是此依義，既因諸蘊立補特伽羅，則補特伽羅亦同此失，不如是立。所立云何？此如世間依薪立火，如何立火可說依薪？謂非離薪可立有火，而薪與火非異非一。若火異薪，薪應不熱。若火與薪一，所燒即能燒。如是不離蘊立補特伽羅。然補特伽羅與蘊非異一，若與蘊異體應是常，若與蘊一體應成斷。仁今於此且應定說，何者為火？何者為薪？令我了知火依薪義。何所應說？若說應言所燒是薪、能燒是火。此復應說何者所燒、何者能燒、名薪名火？且世共了。諸不炎熾所然之物，名所燒薪。

Going beyond this and relying on others, is there no liberation? Reasonably there is none. Why? Because one is confused by the false clinging to a self. That is, the selves held to outside this Dharma are not a conventional designation on the continuity of aggregates, but are clung to as a real self apart from the aggregates. By the power of clinging to a self the afflictions arise, and for the cycle through the three existences there is no room for liberation. What is the proof? One knows that all names of a self merely refer to the continuity of aggregates and do not refer to a separate substance of a self. For the self apart from the aggregates that they posit, there is no real means of direct perception or inference. That is, if the substance of the self were a separate real thing, like other existent dharmas, then, if there were no obstructing conditions, it should be obtained by direct perception like the six objects and the mind, or by inference like the five material faculties. As for the five material faculties being obtained by inference: as is seen in the world, although there are many conditions, when a particular condition is lacking the fruit does not exist, and when it is not lacking it does, as a seed produces a sprout. Likewise, it is seen that although there are present objects, attention and other conditions, consciousness does not arise for the blind and deaf, and arises for those who are not blind or deaf, and so one knows that a particular condition is lacking or not lacking. This particular condition is the eye and other faculties, and so it is called inference of the material faculties. For a self apart from the aggregates neither of the two means of knowledge exists, and by this one knows there is no real substance of a self. However, the Vatsiputriya school (the name of a sect) holds that there is a person (pudgala) whose substance is neither the same as nor different from the aggregates. This should be examined: is it real or conventional? What is the difference between real existence and conventional existence? A separate thing is the characteristic of real existence, like form and sound; mere aggregation is the characteristic of conventional existence, like milk and curd. What faults are there in accepting it as real or as conventional? If its substance is real, it should differ from the aggregates, because it has a separate nature, like each separate aggregate. Also, a real substance must have a cause, or must be unconditioned, which would be the same as the view of the non-Buddhists. It should also be without function, and there would be only vain clinging to real existence. If its substance is conventional, it is the same as what I say. But is the person I establish not one you interrogate as real or conventional? One can only say that the person is established in dependence on the aggregates that are inner, present and appropriated. Such mistaken words do not make the meaning clear. I still do not understand: how is it called dependent? If taking up the aggregates is the meaning of this dependence, then since the person is constituted by taking up the aggregates, the person should be conventionally existent, as milk and curd are constituted by taking up form and so on. If depending on the aggregates is the meaning, since the person is established because of the aggregates, the person would also have this same fault, but it is not so established. How is it established, then? This is like establishing fire in the world in dependence on firewood: how can fire be said to depend on firewood? It is not that apart from firewood fire can be established, yet firewood and fire are neither different nor identical. If fire is different from firewood, firewood should not be hot. If fire is the same as firewood, what is burned would be what burns. Thus the person is established not apart from the aggregates. Yet the person is neither different from nor identical with the aggregates: if it is different in substance from the aggregates it should be permanent, and if it is identical in substance with the aggregates it should be annihilated. You should now definitely say here, what is fire and what is firewood, so that I may understand the meaning of fire depending on firewood. What should be said? If one says that what is burned is firewood and what burns is fire, then it should further be said what is burned and what burns, what is called firewood and fire. Moreover the world commonly understands: things that do not blaze and are burnt are called firewood that is burned.

諸有光明極熱炎熾能然之物，名能燒火。此能燒然彼物相續，令其後後異前前故。此彼雖俱八事為體，而緣薪故火方得生，如緣乳酒生於酪酢，故世共說依薪有火。若依此理火則異薪，後火前薪時各別故。若汝所計補特伽羅，如火依薪依諸蘊者，則定應說緣蘊而生，體異諸蘊，成無常住。若謂即於炎熾木等煖觸名火，餘事名薪，是則火薪俱時而起，應成異體，相有異故。應說依義，此既俱生，如何可言依薪立火？謂非此火用薪為因，各從自因俱時生故。亦非此火名因薪立，以立火名因煖觸故。若謂所說火依薪言，為顯俱生或依止義，是則應許補特伽羅與蘊俱生或依止蘊。已分明許體與蘊異，理則應許。若許蘊無，補特伽羅體亦非有，如薪非有火體亦無。而不許然，故釋非理。然彼於此自設難言：若火異薪，薪應不熱。彼應定說熱體謂何？若彼釋言熱謂煖觸，則薪非熱，體相異故。若復釋言熱謂煖合，則應異體亦得熱名，以實火名唯目煖觸，餘與煖合皆得熱名。是則分明許薪名熱。雖薪火異而過不成，如何此中舉以為難？若謂木等遍炎熾時說名為薪亦名為火，是則應說依義謂何？補特伽羅與色等蘊定應是一，無理能遮。故彼所言如依薪立火，如是依蘊立補特伽羅，進退推徵，理不成立。又彼若許補特伽羅與蘊一異俱不可說，則彼所許三世無為及不可說五種爾焰亦應不可說，以補特伽羅不可說第五及非第五故。又彼施設補特伽羅，應更礭陳為何所託？若言託蘊假義已成，以施設補特伽羅不託補特伽羅故。若言此施設託補特伽羅，如何上言依諸蘊立理，則但應說依補特伽羅。既不許然，故唯託蘊。若謂有蘊此則可知，故我上言此依蘊立。是則諸色有眼等緣方可了知，故應言依眼等。又且應說，補特伽羅是六識中何識所識？六識所識。所以者何？

(The treatise continues:) Things that have light, extreme heat, and blaze, and can burn, are called fire that burns. It burns and makes the continuity of that thing so that each later moment differs from the earlier, and although both have eight elements as their substance, fire can arise only because of firewood as condition, as curd and vinegar arise from milk and wine as condition, and so the world commonly says there is fire depending on firewood. If by this principle fire is different from firewood, because the later fire and the earlier firewood are at different times; if the person that you posit depends on the aggregates as fire depends on firewood, then it should definitely be said to arise in dependence on the aggregates, with substance different from the aggregates, and to be impermanent and not abiding. If one says that the warm touch in blazing wood and so on is called fire and the other things are called firewood, then fire and firewood arise simultaneously and should be of different substance, since their characteristics differ. It should be said what "depend" means: since these arise simultaneously, how can one say fire is established in dependence on firewood? It is not that this fire takes firewood as cause, since each arises simultaneously from its own cause. Also this fire is not named because of firewood, since the name of fire is established because of warm touch. If one says that the saying fire depends on firewood is to show simultaneous arising or dependence, then one should accept that the person arises simultaneously with the aggregates or depends on the aggregates. Having clearly accepted that the substance differs from the aggregates, reasonably one should accept that if the aggregates do not exist, the substance of the person also does not exist, as when firewood does not exist the substance of fire does not either. Yet they do not accept this, so the explanation is unreasonable. Yet they themselves raise an objection here: if fire is different from firewood, firewood should not be hot. They should definitely say what the substance of heat is. If they explain that heat is warm touch, then firewood is not hot, since the substances differ. If they further explain that heat is combination with warmth, then different substances should also get the name of hot, since actual fire is named only for warm touch, and others combined with warmth all get the name hot. Then it is clearly accepted that firewood is called hot. Although firewood and fire are different, the fault is not established; why is it raised here as an objection? If it is said that when wood and so on are entirely blazing they are called firewood and are also called fire, then it should be said what dependence means. The person and the aggregates of form and so on must be one, and there is no reasoning that can prevent this. Therefore what they say, establishing the person in dependence on the aggregates as fire is established in dependence on firewood, is not established by reasoning, whether advanced or retreated. Also, if they accept that the person is inexpressible as same or different from the aggregates, then the three times and the unconditioned that they accept and the five kinds of knowable, the inexpressible, would also be inexpressible, since the person is the fifth that is inexpressible and not the fifth. Also, that person they posit should be stated more clearly: on what is it based? If it is said to be based on the aggregates, then the meaning of being conventional is already established, since the positing of the person is not based on the person. If it is said that this positing is based on the person, how is it reasonable to say above that it is established in dependence on the aggregates? One should then only say it depends on the person. Since they do not accept this, it is based only on the aggregates. If one says that when the aggregates exist this can be known, and so I said above that it is established in dependence on the aggregates, then forms can be known only through the eye and other conditions, and so one should say it depends on the eye and so on. Also one should say, of the six consciousnesses, by which consciousness is the person cognized? It is cognized by the six consciousnesses. Why?

若於一時眼識識色，因茲知有補特伽羅，說此名為眼識所識，而不可說與色一異。乃至一時意識識法，因茲知有補特伽羅，說此名為意識所識，而不可說與法一異。若爾，所計補特伽羅應同乳等唯假施設。謂如眼識識諸色時，因此若能知有乳等，便說乳等眼識所識，而不可說與色一異。乃至身識說諸觸時，因此若能知有乳等，便說乳等身識所識，而不可說與觸一異。勿乳等成四或非四所成。由此應成總依諸蘊假施設有補特伽羅，猶如世間總依色等施設乳等，是假非實。又彼所說，若於一時眼識識色，因茲知有補特伽羅。此言何義？為說諸色是了補特伽羅因？為了色時補特伽羅亦可了？若說諸色是了此因，然不可言此異色者，是則諸色以眼及明作意等緣為了因故，應不可說色異眼等。若了色時此亦可了，為色能了即了此耶？為於此中別有能了？若色能了即能了此，則應許此體即是色，或唯於色假立於此。或不應有如是分別，如是類是色、如是類是此。若無如是二種分別，如何立有色、有補特伽羅，有情必由分別立故。若於此中別有能了，了時別故此應異色，如黃異青前異後等。乃至於法徵難亦然。若彼救言：如此與色不可定說是一是異，二種能了相望亦然，能了不應是有為攝。若許爾者，便壞自宗。又若實有補特伽羅，而不可說色非色者，世尊何故作如是言：色乃至識皆無有我。又彼既許補特伽羅眼識所得，如是眼識於色此俱為緣何起？若緣色起，則不應說眼識能了補特伽羅，此非眼識緣，如聲處等故。謂若有識緣此境起，即用此境為所緣緣，補特伽羅非眼識緣者，如何可說為眼識所緣？故此定非眼識所了。若眼識起緣此或俱，便違經說。以契經中定判識起由二緣故。又契經說：苾芻當知，眼因色緣能生眼識。諸所有眼識皆緣眼色故。又若爾者，補特伽羅應是無常，契經說故。

(The treatise continues:) If at one time eye-consciousness cognizes form, and from this one knows there is a person, then this is called cognized by eye-consciousness, but it cannot be said to be the same as or different from form. And so on, up to when at one time mental consciousness cognizes dharmas, and from this one knows there is a person; this is called cognized by mental consciousness, but it cannot be said to be the same as or different from dharmas. If so, the person that is posited should be like milk and so on, merely a conventional designation. That is, as when eye-consciousness cognizes forms, if from this one can know milk and so on, then it is said milk and so on are cognized by eye-consciousness, but it cannot be said to be the same as or different from form. And so on, up to when body-consciousness speaks of the tangibles, if from this one can know milk and so on, then milk and so on are said to be cognized by body-consciousness, but it cannot be said to be the same as or different from the tangible. Let milk and so on not be constituted by four or not four. By this it should be established that a person exists as a conventional designation depending on the aggregates generally, just as in the world milk and so on are designated depending on form and so on generally, being conventional and not real. Also, regarding what they say, that if at one time eye-consciousness cognizes form, from this one knows there is a person, what does this mean? Is it saying that forms are the cause for cognizing the person? Or that when form is cognized the person can also be cognized? If it is said that forms are the cause for cognizing this, and yet it cannot be said that this is different from form, then since forms have the eye, light, attention and so on as conditions for cognition, it cannot be said that form is different from the eye and so on. If when form is cognized this can also be cognized, does form cognize this as it cognizes? Or is there a separate cognizer here? If form's cognition is itself the cognition of this, then one should accept that this substance is form, or that it is only provisionally established on form. Or there should not be such distinctions as: this kind is form, this kind is the person. If there are not these two kinds of distinction, how can one establish that there is form and there is a person? Sentient beings are necessarily established by distinction. If there is a separate cognizer here, then, because the times of cognition differ, this should differ from form, as yellow differs from blue and before differs from after. And so on for interrogation up to dharmas. If they defend by saying: As this and form cannot be definitively said to be one or different, so too the two cognizers in relation to each other, so the cognizer should not be conditioned; if they accept this, it ruins their own school. Moreover if there is a real person and yet one cannot say it is form or not form, why did the World-Honored One say: Form up to consciousness all have no self? Also since they accept that the person is obtained by eye-consciousness, then eye-consciousness arises with this together with form as conditions? If it arises with form as condition, one should not say eye-consciousness can cognize the person, since this is not the condition of eye-consciousness, like sound spheres and so on. That is, if consciousness arises taking an object, it uses that object as its object condition; if the person is not a condition of eye-consciousness, how can it be said to be the object of eye-consciousness? Therefore it is definitely not cognized by eye-consciousness. If eye-consciousness arises taking this or together with it as condition, it contradicts the sutra, because the sutra definitely judges that consciousness arises from two conditions. Also a sutra says: Bhikshus, know that the eye and form as conditions give rise to eye-consciousness. All eye-consciousness takes the eye and form as conditions. Also if so, the person should be impermanent, since the sutra says so.

謂契經說：諸因諸緣能生識者皆無常性。若彼遂謂補特伽羅非識所緣，應非所識，若非所識應非所知，若非所知如何立有？若不立有便壞自宗。又若許為六識所識，眼識識故應異聲等，猶如色，耳識識故，應異色等，譬如聲。餘識所識，為難准此。又立此為六識所識，便違經說。如契經言：梵志當知，五根行處境界各別，各唯受用自所行處及自境界，非有異根亦能受用異根行處及異境界。五根謂眼耳鼻舌身，意兼受用五根行處及彼境界，彼依意故。或不應執補特伽羅是五根境，如是便非五識所識，有違宗過。若爾，意根境亦應別。如六生喻契經中言：如是六根行處境界各有差別，各別樂求自所行處及自境界。非此中說眼等六根，眼等五根及所生識無有勢力樂見等故。但說眼等增上勢力所引意識名眼等根，獨行意根增上勢力所引意識，不能樂求眼等五根所行境界。故此經義無違前失。又世尊說：苾芻當知，吾今為汝具足演說一切所達所知法門。其體是何？謂諸眼色眼識眼觸，眼觸為緣內所生受，或樂或苦不苦不樂。廣說乃至。意觸為緣內所生受，或樂、或苦、不苦不樂，是名一切所達所知。由此經文，決判一切所達知法唯有爾所，此中無有補特伽羅，故補特伽羅亦應非所識，以慧與識境必同故。諸謂眼見補特伽羅，應知眼根見此所有，於見非我謂見我故，彼便蹎墜惡見深坑。故佛經中自決此義，謂唯於諸蘊說補特伽羅。如人契經作如是說：眼及色為緣生於眼識，三和合觸俱起受想思。於中後四是無色蘊，初眼及色名為色蘊，唯由此量說名為人。即於此中隨義差別假立名想，或謂有情不悅意生儒童、養者、命者、生者、補特伽羅，亦自稱言我眼見色。復隨世俗說，此具壽有如是名、如是種族、如是姓類、如是飲食、如是受樂、如是受苦、如是長壽、如是久住、如是壽際。

(The treatise continues:) That is, the sutra says: All causes and conditions that can give rise to consciousness are of impermanent nature. If they then say that the person is not an object of consciousness, it should not be cognized; if it is not cognized it should not be known; if it is not known, how can it be established as existing? If it is not established as existing, their own school is ruined. Also if they accept that it is cognized by the six consciousnesses, then because it is cognized by eye-consciousness it should differ from sound and so on, like form; because it is cognized by ear-consciousness it should differ from form and so on, like sound. The objection regarding what other consciousnesses cognize follows the same pattern. Also if they establish this as cognized by the six consciousnesses, they contradict the sutra. As a sutra says: Brahmin, know that the five faculties have different ranges and objects, each enjoying only its own range and its own objects, and it is not that a different faculty can also enjoy the range and objects of another faculty. The five faculties are eye, ear, nose, tongue and body; the mind enjoys together the ranges of the five faculties and their objects, since it relies on mind. Or one should not hold that the person is an object of the five faculties; in this case it would not be cognized by the five consciousnesses, which contradicts their school. If so, the object of the mind faculty should also be different. As the sutra of the six kinds of birth parable says: In this way the six faculties each have different ranges and objects, each separately delighting in its own range and own objects. It is not that the six faculties, eye and so on, spoken of here, the five faculties, eye and so on, and the consciousness arisen from them, have no power to delight in seeing and so on; but what is said is that the mental consciousness drawn by the dominant power of the eye and so on is called the eye faculty and so on, while the mental consciousness drawn by the dominant power of the mind faculty acting alone cannot delight in the ranges and objects of the five faculties, eye and so on. Therefore this sutra has no fault in meaning as stated above. Also the World-Honored One said: Bhikshus, know that I will now fully explain to you all the teachings of what is reached and known. What is their substance? The eye, form, eye-consciousness, eye-contact, and the feeling arisen internally with eye-contact as condition, whether pleasant, painful or neither, and so on at length up to feeling arisen internally with mind-contact as condition, whether pleasant, painful or neither: these are called all that is reached and known. By this passage of the sutra it is definitively judged that everything reached and known is only as much as this, and there is no person here; therefore the person also should not be cognized, since wisdom and consciousness necessarily have the same object. Those who say the eye sees a person should know that it is the eye faculty that sees what is here; in seeing what is not self, they mistakenly see what is mine, and so they fall into the deep pit of evil view. Therefore in the Buddha's sutra he himself determined this meaning, that a person is spoken of only with respect to the aggregates. As the sutra of the person says: The eye and form as conditions give rise to eye-consciousness, and the meeting of the three, contact, arises together with feeling, perception and volition. Among these the latter four are immaterial aggregates, and the first, the eye and form, are called the aggregate of form; only by this measure is it called a person. Within these, according to differences of meaning, names and perceptions are conventionally established: or someone thinks of sentient beings, unpleasant ones, offspring of Manu, nurturers, living ones, those who are born, persons, and one also says of oneself: My eye sees form. And following worldly custom one says: This venerable one has such a name, such a clan, such a family, such food, such experience of pleasure, such experience of pain, such long life, such long abiding, such life span.

苾芻當知，此唯名想，此唯自稱，但隨世俗假施設有。如是一切無常有為，從眾緣生、由思所造。世尊恆勅依了義經，此經了義，不應異釋。又薄伽梵告梵志言：我說一切有唯是十二處。若數取趣非是處攝，無體理成。若是處攝，則不應言是不可說。彼部所誦契經亦言：諸所有眼、諸所有色，廣說乃至苾芻當知，如來齊此施設一切建立一切有自體法。此中無有補特伽羅，如何可說此有實體。頻毘婆羅契經亦說：諸有愚昧無聞異生，隨逐假名計為我者，此中無有我我所性，唯有一切眾苦法體將正已生，乃至廣說。有阿羅漢苾芻尼名世羅，為魔王說：

(The treatise continues:) Bhikshus, know that this is only a name, only a self-designation, merely conventionally designated according to worldly usage. All such things are impermanent, conditioned, arising from many conditions and made by volition. The World-Honored One constantly instructed to rely on sutras of definitive meaning, and this sutra is of definitive meaning and should not be explained differently. Also the Bhagavan told a brahmin: I say that all that exists is only the twelve bases. If the person (one who repeatedly takes rebirth) is not included in the bases, then it is established as having no substance. If it is included in the bases, then it should not be said to be inexpressible. The sutra recited by that school also says: All eyes and all forms, and so on at length, bhikshus, know that up to here the Tathagata has designated and established all things that have own-being. Here there is no person; how can it be said to have a real substance? The sutra of Bimbisara (a king's name) also says: Those ignorant, unlearned ordinary beings who follow conventional names and take them as a self, here there is no nature of self or mine; there is only the substance of all the dharmas of suffering about to arise or already arisen, and so on at length. There was an arhat bhikshuni named Sela (a bhikshuni's name) who said to Mara:

汝墮惡見趣，於空行聚中，

You have fallen into an evil view, in a mass of empty formations,

妄執有有情，智者達非有。

You falsely cling to sentient beings, but the wise understand they do not exist.

如即攬眾分，假想立為車，

As by gathering many parts one conventionally conceives and establishes a chariot,

世俗立有情，應知攬諸蘊。

So worldly convention establishes sentient beings; one should know they gather the aggregates.

世尊於《雜阿笈摩》中為婆羅門婆拕梨說：

In the Samyuktagama the World-Honored One said to the brahmin Bhadali (a brahmin's name):

婆拕梨諦聽，能解諸結法，

Bhadali, listen carefully, I can explain the dharma that loosens the fetters,

謂依心故染，亦依心故淨。

That is, the mind is defiled by reliance on mental states, and also purified by reliance on mental states.

我實無我性，顛倒故執有，

The self in truth has no self-nature, one clings to it because of inversion,

無有情無我，唯有有因法。

There are no sentient beings and no self, there are only dharmas with causes.

謂十二有支，所攝蘊處界，

That is, the twelve limbs of existence, and the aggregates, bases and elements they include,

審思此一切，無補特伽羅，

Examine all of these carefully, there is no person,

既觀內是空，觀外空亦爾，

Having contemplated that the inner is empty, the outer is empty likewise,

能修空觀者，亦都不可得。

And the one who cultivates the contemplation of emptiness cannot be found either.

經說：執我有五種失，謂起我見及有情見墮惡見趣，同諸外道越路而行，於空性中心不悟入、不能淨信、不能安住、不得解脫，聖法於彼不能清淨。此皆非量。所以者何？於我部中曾不誦故。汝宗許是量，為部為佛言？若部是量，佛非汝師、汝非釋子。若佛言者，此皆佛言，如何非量。彼謂：此說皆非真佛言。所以者何？我部不誦故。此極非理。非理者何？如是經文諸部皆誦，不違法性及餘契經，而敢於中輒興誹撥，我不誦故非真佛言。唯縱兇狂，故極非理。又於彼部豈無此經，謂一切法皆非我性。若彼意謂補特伽羅與所依法不一不異，故說一切法皆非我。既爾，應非意識所識，二緣生識經決判故。又於餘經如何會釋？謂契經說：非我計我此中具有想心見倒。計我成倒，說於非我，不言於我，何煩會釋。非我者何？謂蘊處界。便違前說補特伽羅與色等蘊不一不異。又餘經說：苾芻當知，一切沙門婆羅門等諸有執我等隨觀見，一切唯於五取蘊起。故無依我起於我見，但於非我法妄分別為我。又餘經言：諸有已憶正憶當憶種種宿住，一切唯於五取蘊起，故定無有補特伽羅。若爾，何緣此經復說我於過去世有如是色等？此經為顯能憶宿生一相續中有種種事。若見實有補特伽羅於過去生能有色等，如何非墮起身見失？或應誹撥言無此經，是故此經依總假我，言有色等如聚如流。若爾，世尊應非一切智，無心心所能知一切法剎那剎那異生滅故。若許有我可能遍知，補特伽羅則應常住，許心滅時此不滅故，如是便越汝所許宗。我等不言佛於一切能頓遍知故名一切智者，但約相續有堪能故，謂得佛名諸蘊相續成就如是殊勝堪能，才作意時於所欲知境無倒智起故名一切智，非於一念能頓遍知。故於此中有如是頌：

The sutra says: Clinging to a self has five faults, namely giving rise to the view of self and the view of sentient beings, falling into evil views, going astray like the non-Buddhists, being unable to awaken in the mind to the nature of emptiness, unable to have pure faith, unable to abide, unable to attain liberation, and the noble Dharma not being pure for them. All this is not authoritative. Why? Because it is not recited in our school. Does your school accept it as authoritative, as the school's word or the Buddha's word? If the school's word is authoritative, the Buddha is not your teacher and you are not a Sakya disciple. If it is the Buddha's word, then all this is the Buddha's word, so how can it not be authoritative? They say: This teaching is not truly the Buddha's word. Why? Because our school does not recite it. This is extremely unreasonable. Why unreasonable? Such sutra passages are recited by all schools and do not contradict the nature of the Dharma or the other sutras, yet they dare to slander them, saying that because we do not recite them they are not truly the Buddha's word; this only indulges fierce madness, and so is extremely unreasonable. Also does that school not have this sutra, namely that all dharmas are not of the nature of self? If they intend that the person is neither the same as nor different from the dharmas it depends on, and so say all dharmas are not self, then it should not be cognized by mental consciousness, since the sutra definitively judges that consciousness arises from two conditions. Also how do they reconcile other sutras? As a sutra says: To take what is not self as self, here there are fully inverted perception, mind and view. Taking self is inverted, and it is said of what is not self, not said of self, so what need is there to reconcile? What is not self? It is the aggregates, bases and elements. This would contradict the earlier statement that the person is neither the same as nor different from the aggregates of form and so on. Another sutra says: Bhikshus, know that all ascetics and brahmins who hold and contemplate the self and so on, all of them do so only regarding the five aggregates of grasping. Therefore there is no basis for self-view arising apart from self; rather, regarding dharmas that are not self they falsely discriminate and take them to be self. Another sutra says: All who have remembered, rightly remember, or will remember various past lives, all do so only regarding the five aggregates of grasping, and therefore there is definitely no person. If so, why does this sutra further say: In the past I had such form and so on? This sutra is to show that within the one continuity that can remember past lives there are various things. If one sees a real person who could have form and so on in a past life, how is one not falling into the fault of giving rise to self-view? Or one should slander and say this sutra does not exist; therefore this sutra, based on the overall conventional self, speaks of having form and so on like a heap or like a stream. If so, the World-Honored One should not be omniscient, because there is no mind or mental factors that can know all dharmas that change, arise and cease moment by moment. If one accepts a self, it could know everything, and then the person would be permanent, since one accepts that when the mind ceases this does not cease, and thus one goes beyond the school you accept. We do not say the Buddha is called omniscient because he can know everything at once, but because of the capacity of his continuity: the continuity of aggregates called Buddha accomplishes such excellent capacity that at the moment of directing attention, non-inverted knowledge arises toward whatever object one wishes to know, and so he is called omniscient, not because he knows everything at one instant. Regarding this there is a verse:

由相續有能，如火食一切，

Because of the capacity of the continuity, like fire that consumes everything,

如是一切智，非由頓遍知。

So omniscience is not by knowing everything at once.

如何得知約相續說知一切法，非我遍知？說佛世尊有三世故。於何處說？如有頌言：

How does one know that the knowing of all dharmas is spoken of in terms of continuity and not of a self knowing everything? Because it is said that the Buddhas, World-Honored Ones, have three times. Where is this said? As a verse says:

若過去諸佛，若未來諸佛，

Whether the Buddhas of the past, or the Buddhas of the future,

若現在諸佛，皆滅眾生憂。

Or the Buddhas of the present, all extinguish the sorrows of beings.

汝宗唯許蘊有三世，非數取趣，故定應爾。

Your school accepts only that aggregates have three times, not the one who repeatedly takes rebirth, and so definitely it should be thus.

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by the Tripitaka Master Xuanzang by imperial order

破執我品第九之二

Chapter 9, Refutation of the Doctrine of Self, Part 2

若唯五取蘊名補特伽羅，何故世尊作如是說：吾今為汝說諸重擔、取捨重擔、荷重擔者。何緣於此佛不應說？不應重擔即名能荷。所以者何？曾未見故。不可說事亦不應說。所以者何？亦未見故。又取重擔應非蘊攝，重擔自取，曾未見故。然經說愛名取擔者，既即蘊攝，荷者應然，即於諸蘊立數取趣。然恐謂此補特伽羅是不可說常住實有，故此經後佛自釋言：但隨世俗，說此具壽有如是名，乃至廣說。如上所引人經文句，為令了此補特伽羅，可說無常非實有性。即五取蘊自相逼害得重擔名。前前剎那引後後故名為荷者，故非實有補特伽羅。補特伽羅定應實有，以契經說諸有撥無化生有情邪見攝故。誰言無有化生有情？如佛所言：我說有故。謂蘊相續能往後世，不由胎卵濕名化生有情。撥此為無，故邪見攝。化生諸蘊，理實有故。又許此邪見謗補特伽羅。汝等應言，是何所斷？見修所斷。理並不然，補特伽羅非諦攝故，邪見不應修所斷故。若謂經說有一補特伽羅生在世間，應非蘊者，亦不應理，此於總中假說一故，如世間說一麻一米一聚一言。或補特伽羅應許有為攝，以契經說生世間故。非此言生如蘊新起，依何義說生在世間？依此今時取別蘊義，如世間說能祠者生、記論者生，取明論故。又如世說有苾芻生、有外道生，取儀式故。或如世說有老者生，有病者生，取別位故。佛已遮故，此救不成。如勝義空契經中說：有業有異熟，作者不可得。謂能捨此蘊，及能續餘蘊，唯除法假。故佛已遮。頗勒具那契經亦說：我終不說有能取者。故定無一補特伽羅能於世間取捨諸蘊。又汝所引祠者等生，其體是何而能喻此？若執是我，彼不極成。若心心所，彼念念滅、新新生故，取捨不成。若許是身，亦如心等。又如明等與身有異，蘊亦應異補特伽羅。老病二身各與前別，數論轉變如前已遣，故彼所引為喻不成。

If only the five aggregates of grasping are called a person, why did the World-Honored One say: I will now explain to you the heavy burden, the taking up and putting down of the burden, and the bearer of the burden? Why should the Buddha not say this here? The burden should not itself be called the bearer. Why? Because this has never been seen. A thing that cannot be spoken of also should not be spoken of. Why? Because that too has never been seen. Also the burden to be taken up should not be included in the aggregates, since the burden taking itself up has never been seen. Yet the sutra says craving is called the one who takes up the burden; since it is included in the aggregates, the bearer should also be so, and the one who repeatedly takes rebirth is established on the aggregates. But fearing that this person might be taken as inexpressible, permanent and really existent, the Buddha himself explained after this sutra: But following worldly convention, one says this venerable one has such a name, and so on at length. As in the passage of the sutra of the person quoted above, it is to make one understand that this person can be said to be impermanent and not of real nature. The five aggregates of grasping themselves, oppressing one another, get the name burden. Because each earlier moment draws the later ones, it is called the bearer, and so it is not a really existing person. The person must be really existent, because the sutra says that those who deny that there are beings born by transformation are included in wrong view. Who says there are no beings born by transformation? As the Buddha said: I say that there are. That is, the continuity of aggregates can go to a later world, and what is not born from womb, egg or moisture is called a being born by transformation. To deny this is included in wrong view, and so the aggregates of those born by transformation reasonably exist. Also you accept that this wrong view slanders the person; you should say, by what is it severed, by seeing or by cultivation? Reasonably neither is so, because the person is not included in the truths and because wrong view should not be severed by cultivation. If one says the sutra says that there is a person born in the world, which should not be the aggregates, that is also unreasonable, since this is a conventional designation of one within a whole, as the world says one sesame seed, one grain of rice, one heap, one word. Or the person should be accepted as included among the conditioned, since the sutra says it is born in the world. This word "born" does not mean newly arising like the aggregates; on what meaning is it said to be born in the world? On the meaning of taking up different aggregates at this time, as the world says a sacrificer is born, an expounder of treatises is born, taking up the Vedas. Or as the world says a bhikshu is born, a non-Buddhist is born, taking up ceremonies. Or as the world says an old person is born, a sick person is born, taking up different stages. Because the Buddha has already prevented it, this defense is not established. As the sutra on ultimate emptiness says: There is karma and maturation, but the doer cannot be found, namely the one who can give up these aggregates and continue other aggregates, except for conventional designation of dharmas. Therefore the Buddha has already prevented it. The sutra of Phalguna (a sutra's name) also says: I never say that there is one who takes up. Therefore there is definitely no single person who can take up and give up aggregates in the world. Also what you cite about the birth of a sacrificer and so on, what is its substance that can serve as an analogy? If you hold it is a self, it is not agreed to. If it is mind and mental factors, they cease moment by moment and arise newly each time, so taking up and giving up is not established. If you accept it is the body, it is also like the mind and so on. Also as with the Vedas and so on, which differ from the body, the aggregates too should differ from the person. The old and sick bodies each differ from the previous, and the Samkhya transformation was refuted before, and so what they cite as an analogy is not established.

又許蘊生非數取趣，則定許此異蘊及常。又此唯一，蘊體有五，寧不說此與蘊有異？大種有四，造色唯一，寧言造色不異大種？是彼宗過。何謂彼宗？諸計造色即大種論。設如彼見，應作是質：如諸造色即四大種，亦應即五蘊立補特伽羅。若補特伽羅即諸蘊者，世尊何不記命者即身？觀能問者阿世耶故。問者執一內用士夫體實非虛名為命者，依此問佛與身一異。此都無故，一異不成，如何與身可記一異？如不可記龜毛䩕軟，古昔諸師已解斯結。昔有大德名曰龍軍，三明六通具八解脫。於時有一畢隣陀王，至大德所作如是說：我今來意欲請所疑。然諸沙門性好多語，尊能直答，我當請問。大德受請。王即問言：命者與身為一為異？大德答言：此不應記。王言：豈不先有要耶？今何異言不答所問？大德質曰：我欲問疑。然諸國王性好多語，王能直答，我當發問。王便受教。大德問言：大王宮中諸菴羅樹所生果味為酢為甘。王言：宮中本無此樹。大德復責：先無要耶？今何異言不答所問。王言：宮內此樹既無，寧可答言果味甘酢？大德誨曰：命者亦無，如何可言與身一異？佛何不說命者都無？亦觀問者阿世耶故。問者或於諸蘊相續謂為命者，依之發問。世尊若答命者都無，彼墮邪見，故佛不說。彼未能了緣起理故，非受正法器，不為說假有。理必應爾，世尊說故。如世尊告阿難陀言：有姓筏蹉出家外道，來至我所作是問言：我於世間為有非有？我不為記。所以者何？若記為有，違法真理，以一切法皆無我故。若記為無，增彼愚惑，彼便謂我先有今無。對執有愚，此愚更甚，謂執有我則墮常邊，若執無我便墮斷邊。此二輕重，如經廣說。依如是義，故有頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) Also if they accept that the arising of aggregates is not the person who repeatedly takes rebirth, then they definitely accept that this differs from the aggregates and is permanent. Also this is one while the aggregates are five in substance; why not say that this differs from the aggregates? The great elements are four and derived form is one; why say that derived form is not different from the great elements? That is a fault of their school. What is their school? Those who hold the theory that derived form is the great elements themselves. If, as they view it, the great elements are what derived forms are, one should make this argument: as derived forms are the four great elements, the person should also be established as the five aggregates. If the person is the aggregates, why did the World-Honored One not say that the living one is the body? Because he observed the disposition of the questioner. The questioner holds that the inner functional male-person has a real substance that is not a mere name, called the living one, and on this basis asks the Buddha whether it is the same as or different from the body. Since all this is nonexistent, same and different are not established; how can one answer same or different with the body? It is like the inability to answer whether the hair of a tortoise is soft or hard; the ancient masters have already untied this knot. Long ago there was a great master named Nagasena (the name of a master), who had the three knowledges and six powers and the eight liberations. At that time King Milinda (a king's name) came to the great master and said: I have come to ask about my doubts. But ascetics are by nature talkative; if you can answer directly I shall ask. The great master accepted. The king asked: Is the living one the same as the body or different? The great master answered: This should not be answered. The king said: Did we not agree beforehand? Why do you now say something else and not answer my question? The great master challenged: I wish to ask a doubt. But kings are by nature talkative; if the king can answer directly I shall ask. The king agreed. The great master asked: Great king, are the fruits born from the mango trees in your palace sour or sweet? The king said: There are originally no such trees in the palace. The great master reproached him in turn: Did we not agree beforehand? Why do you now say something else and not answer my question? The king said: Since there are no such trees in the palace, how can one answer whether the fruit is sweet or sour? The great master taught: The living one also does not exist; how can it be said to be the same as or different from the body? Why did the Buddha not say there is no living one at all? Also because he observed the disposition of the questioner. The questioner takes the continuity of aggregates to be the living one and asks on that basis. If the World-Honored One answered that there is no living one at all, the questioner would fall into wrong view, and so the Buddha did not say so. Because he had not yet understood the principle of dependent origination, he was not a vessel for the true Dharma, and the conventionally existent was not taught to him. Reasonably it should be so, as the World-Honored One said. As the World-Honored One said to Ananda: A non-Buddhist ascetic named Vatsa came to me and asked: Do I exist in the world or not? I did not answer. Why? If I answered that it exists, it would contradict the true principle of the Dharma, since all dharmas have no self. If I answered that it does not exist, it would increase his delusion, for he would think that I once had a self and now do not. To one who holds that there is a self, this delusion is even greater; holding that there is a self falls into the extreme of permanence, and holding that there is no self falls into the extreme of annihilation. The relative weight of these two is explained at length in the sutra. In accordance with this meaning, there is a verse:

觀為見所傷，及壞諸善業，

Observing that he would be hurt by views and ruin good karma,

故佛說正法，如牝虎銜子。

Therefore the Buddha spoke the true Dharma as a tigress holds her cub in her mouth.

執真我為有，則為見牙傷，

Holding that a true self exists, one is wounded by the fangs of views,

撥俗我為無，便壞善業子。

Denying that the conventional self exists, one ruins the child of good karma.

復說頌曰：

Another verse says:

由實命者無，佛不言一異，

Because there is no real living one, the Buddha did not say same or different,

恐撥無假我，亦不說都無。

Fearing the denial of the conventional self, he also did not say there is none at all.

謂蘊相續中，有業果命者，

That is, within the continuity of aggregates there is a living one of karma and fruit,

若說無命者，彼撥此為無。

If one says there is no living one, one denies this as non-existent.

不說諸蘊中，有假名命者，

He did not say there is a conventionally named living one among the aggregates,

由觀發問者，無力解真空。

Because he observed that the questioner lacked the power to understand true emptiness.

如是觀筏蹉，意樂差別故，

So he observed Vatsa, because of the difference in his disposition,

彼問有無我，佛不答有無。

When he asked whether there is a self or not, the Buddha did not answer yes or no.

何緣不記世間常等？亦觀問者阿世耶故。問者若執我為世間，我體都無故，四記皆非理。若執生死皆名世間，佛四種記亦皆非理。謂若常者，無得涅槃。若是非常，便自斷滅，不由功力鹹得涅槃。若記為常亦非常者，定應一分無得涅槃，一分有情自證圓寂。若記非常非非常者，則非得涅槃，非不得涅槃。決定相違，便成戲論。然依聖道可般涅槃，故四定記皆不應理。如離繫子問雀死生，佛知彼心不為定記。有邊等四亦不記者，以同常等皆有失故。寧知此四義同常等？以有外道名嗢底迦，先問世間有邊等四，復設方便矯問世尊：為諸世間皆由聖道能得出離、為一分耶？尊者阿難因告彼曰：汝以此事已問世尊，今復何緣改名重問？故知後四，義與前同。復以何緣世尊不記如來死後有等四耶？亦觀問者阿世耶故，問者妄計已解脫我名為如來而發問故。今應詰問計有我者，佛何緣記有現補特伽羅，不記如來死後亦有？彼言恐有墮常失故。若爾，何緣佛記慈氏汝於來世當得作佛，及記弟子身壞命終，某甲今時已生某處。此豈非有墮常過失？若佛先見補特伽羅，彼涅槃已便不復見，以不知故不記有者，則撥大師具一切智。或應許不記，由我體都無。若謂世尊見而不說，則有離蘊及常住過。若見非見俱不可說，則應漸言，不可說佛是一切智非一切智。若謂實有補特伽羅，以契經言諦故住故，定執無我者墮惡見處故。此不成證，彼經亦說定執有我者墮惡見處故。阿毘達磨諸論師言：執我有無俱邊見攝，如次墮在常斷邊故。彼師所說深為應理，以執有我則墮常邊，若執無我便墮斷邊。前《筏蹉經》分明說故。若定無有補特伽羅，為說阿誰流轉生死？不應生死自流轉故。然薄伽梵於契經中，說諸有情無明所覆、貪愛所繫馳流生死，故應定有補特伽羅。此復如何流轉生死？由捨前蘊取後蘊故。如是義宗前已徵遣。

Why did he not answer whether the world is permanent and so on? Also because he observed the disposition of the questioner. If the questioner holds that the self is the world, since the substance of the self does not exist at all, all four answers are unreasonable. If he holds that birth and death are all called the world, the Buddha's four kinds of answers are all unreasonable. That is, if it is permanent, there would be no attainment of nirvana. If it is impermanent, it would annihilate itself and all would attain nirvana without effort. If he answers that it is both permanent and impermanent, then definitely one part would have no attainment of nirvana and one part of sentient beings would realize nirvana themselves. If he answers that it is neither permanent nor impermanent, then it is neither attaining nor not attaining nirvana; this is definitely contradictory and becomes idle talk. Yet one can enter nirvana by relying on the noble path, and so all four definite answers are unreasonable. As when the son of the Nirgrantha asked about whether a sparrow was alive or dead, the Buddha knew his mind and did not give a definite answer. The four, finite and so on, were also not answered, because like permanent and so on they all have faults. How does one know these four have the same meaning as permanent and so on? Because there was a non-Buddhist named Uttika (a non-Buddhist's name) who first asked about the world being finite and so on, four, and then devised a method to question the World-Honored One deceitfully: Do all the worlds get out by the noble path, or only a part? The Venerable Ananda then said to him: You already asked the World-Honored One about this matter; why do you now change the name and ask again? Therefore one knows the latter four have the same meaning as the former. Why did the World-Honored One not answer whether the Tathagata exists after death and so on, the four? Also because he observed the disposition of the questioner, since the questioner falsely holds that the self that has been liberated is called the Tathagata and asks on that basis. Now one should challenge those who hold that there is a self: Why did the Buddha answer that there is a present person but did not answer that the Tathagata also exists after death? They say that he feared falling into the fault of permanence. If so, why did the Buddha predict that Maitreya will become a Buddha in the future, and predict that when disciples' bodies break and lives end, so-and-so is now born in such-and-such a place? Is this not falling into the fault of permanence? If the Buddha first saw the person and after nirvana no longer saw it, and so did not say that it exists because he did not know, then they would deny that the great teacher possesses omniscience. Or one should accept that he did not answer because the substance of the self is wholly non-existent. If one says the World-Honored One saw but did not say, then there is the fault of being apart from the aggregates and permanent. If seeing and not seeing are both inexpressible, then one should gradually say that it cannot be said that the Buddha is omniscient or not omniscient. If one says the person really exists because the sutra says it is a truth and abides, and that those who definitely hold there is no self fall into the place of evil views, this is not proof, since that sutra also says that those who definitely hold there is a self fall into the place of evil views. The masters of the Abhidharma say: Holding that there is a self or that there is none are both included in extreme views, falling in order into the extremes of permanence and annihilation. What those masters say is deeply reasonable, since holding that there is a self falls into the extreme of permanence, and holding that there is no self falls into the extreme of annihilation, as is clearly stated in the earlier Vatsa sutra. If there is definitely no person, who is said to transmigrate in birth and death? Birth and death should not flow by themselves. But the Bhagavan says in the sutras that sentient beings, covered by ignorance and bound by craving, run on in birth and death, and so there should definitely be a person. How then does this person transmigrate through birth and death? By giving up the former aggregates and taking up the later aggregates. This meaning and doctrine were examined and dismissed before.

如燎原火雖剎那滅，而由相續說有流轉。如是蘊聚假說有情，愛取為緣流轉生死。若唯有蘊，何故世尊作如是說：今我於昔為世導師名為妙眼。此說何咎？蘊各異故。若爾，是何物謂補特伽羅？昔我即今，體應常住，故說今我昔為師言，顯昔與今是一相續，如言此火曾燒彼事。若謂決定有真實我，則應唯佛能明瞭觀，觀已應生堅固我執，從斯我執我所執生，從此應生我我所愛。故薄伽梵作如是言：若執有我便執我所，執我所故於諸蘊中便復發生我我所愛薩迦耶見，我愛所縛則為謗佛，去解脫遠。若謂於我不起我愛，此言無義。所以者何？於非我中橫計為我，容起我愛。非實我中，如是所言無理為證，故彼於佛真聖教中無有因緣起見瘡皰。如是一類執有不可說補特伽羅。復有一類總撥一切法體皆非有。外道執有別真我性，此等一切見不如理，皆不能免無解脫過。若一切類我體都無，剎那滅心於曾所受久相似境何能憶知？如是憶知，從相續內念境想類心差別生。且初憶念為從何等心差別無間生？從有緣彼作意相似相屬想等，不為依止差別愁憂散亂等緣損壞功德心差別起。雖有如是作意等緣，若無彼類心差別者，則無堪能修此憶念。雖有彼類心差別因，若無如是緣，亦無能修理，要具二種方可能修。諸憶念生但由於此，不見離此有功能故。如何異心見，後異心能憶。非天授心曾所見境，後祠授心有憶念理。此難非理，不相屬故。謂彼二心互不相屬，非如一相續有因果性故。我等不言異心見境異心能憶，相續一故。然從過去緣彼境心，引起今時能憶念識。謂如前說相續轉變差別力故生念何失？由此憶念力，有後記知生。我體既無，孰為能憶？能憶是何義？由念能取境。此取境豈異念？雖不異念，但由作者，作者即是前說念因，謂彼類心差別。然世間所言制怛羅能憶，此於蘊相續立制怛羅名。

(The treatise continues:) Like a fire on the plain, although it ceases moment by moment, transmigration is spoken of on account of continuity. In this way, sentient beings are conventionally spoken of as a mass of aggregates, and with craving and grasping as conditions they transmigrate in birth and death. If there are only aggregates, why did the World-Honored One say: I in the past was the guide of the world named Sunetra (Excellent Eye)? What fault is there in this? The aggregates are each different. If so, what thing is called the person? I of the past are the same as I now, and the substance should be permanent. Therefore the statement that I now was in the past a teacher shows that the past and the present are one continuity, as one says this fire once burned that thing. If one says there definitely is a real self, then only the Buddha could clearly contemplate it, and having contemplated it one should give rise to firm clinging to self, from this clinging to self clinging to what is mine arises, and from this love of self and mine should arise. Therefore the Bhagavan said: If one clings to a self then one clings to what is mine, and because one clings to what is mine, one again gives rise among the aggregates to love of self and mine and the view of a real self; one bound by love of self thereby slanders the Buddha and is far from liberation. If one says that one does not give rise to love of self toward the self, this saying is meaningless. Why? Because in what is not self one rashly takes it as self, and love of self may arise; in a real self there is no such reasoning to prove it, and so such a one has no cause or condition for seeing sores and boils in the Buddha's true noble teaching. This is one kind of person who holds there is an inexpressible person. There is another kind who generally deny that the substance of all dharmas exists at all. The non-Buddhists hold there is a separate true nature of self. All such views are unreasonable and none can avoid the fault of having no liberation. If the substance of a self wholly does not exist in any kind, how can a mind that ceases moment by moment recall and know an object formerly experienced, a similar object after a long time? Such recollection and knowing arises from within the continuity from distinct kinds of mind that perceive the object by mindfulness. First, from what distinct mind does the initial recollection arise immediately after? It arises from distinct minds that have attention toward that object, similar and belonging perceptions and so on, not damaged in their qualities by dependence on conditions such as sorrow and distraction. Even with such attention and other conditions, if there is no distinct mind of that kind, there is no capacity to cultivate this recollection. Even with the cause of a distinct mind of that kind, if there are no such conditions, there is also no reason to cultivate it; one must have both for it to be cultivated. Recollections arise only from this, and no capacity is seen apart from it. How can a different mind see and a later different mind recall? The mind of Devadatta (a person's name) cannot have seen an object, with the later mind of Yajnadatta (a person's name) recalling it; this is not reasonable. This objection is unreasonable, since they do not belong to each other. That is, the two minds do not belong to each other, unlike one continuity having the nature of cause and effect. We do not say that one mind sees an object and a different mind recalls it, since the continuity is one. Rather, from the past mind that took that object as condition, the consciousness that can recall at the present time is brought about; that is, what fault is there in mindfulness arising by the power of change in the continuity as said before? By the power of this recollection, later recognition arises. Since there is no substance of self, who is the one who recalls? What does it mean to be able to recall? It is that by mindfulness one can take the object. Is this taking the object different from mindfulness? Although it is not different from mindfulness, there is an agent by which it is done, and the agent is the cause of mindfulness spoken of earlier, namely the distinct mind of that kind. Yet the world says Citra (a person's name) can recall; here the name Citra is established on the continuity of aggregates.

從先見心後憶念起，依如是理說彼能憶。我體若無，是誰之念？為依何義說第六聲？此第六聲依屬主義，如何物屬何主？此如牛等屬制怛羅。彼如何為牛主？謂依彼彼所乘所搆所役等中彼得自在。欲於何所驅役於念，而勤方便尋求念主？於所念境驅役於念。役念為何？謂令念起。奇哉自在起無理言，寧為此生而驅役此？又我於念如何驅役？為令念起、為令念行？念無行故，但應念起。則因名主，果名能屬。由因增上令果得生，故因名主。果於生時是因所有，故名能屬。即生念因足為念主，何勞立我為念主耶？即諸行聚一類相續，世共施設制怛羅牛，立制怛羅名為牛主。是牛相續於異方生，變異生因故名為主。此中無一實制怛羅亦無實牛，但假施設，故言牛主，亦不離因。憶念既爾，記知亦然。如辯憶知，熟為能了誰之識等，亦應例釋。且識因緣與前別者，謂根境等，如應當知。有作是言：決定有我，事用必待事用者故。謂諸事用待事用者，如天授行必待天授。行是事用天授名者，如是識等所有事用，必待所依能了等者。今應詰彼：天授謂何？若是實我，此如先破。若假士夫，體非一物，於諸行相續假立此名故。如天授能行，識能了亦爾。依何理說天授能行？謂於剎那生滅諸行不異相續立天授名，愚夫於中執為一體，為自相續異處生因。異處生名行，因即名行者。依此理說天授能行。如焰及聲異處相續，世依此說焰聲能行。如是天授身能為識因故，世間亦謂天授能了。然諸聖者為順世間言說理故，亦作是說。經說諸識能了所緣，識於所緣為何所作？都無所作，但以境生。如果酬因，雖無所作而似因起，說名酬因。如是識生，雖無所作而似境，故說名了境。如何似境？謂帶彼相。是故諸識雖亦託根生，不名了根，但名為了境。或識於境相續生時，前識為因引後識起，說識能了亦無有失，世間於因說作者故。

(The treatise continues:) From an earlier seeing mind, a later recollection arises, and according to this principle it is said that "he" recollects. If a self does not exist, whose is the memory? And on what meaning is the sixth case-ending based? This sixth case-ending is based on the meaning of possessor and possessed. How is a thing possessed by which owner? It is like cattle belonging to Caitra. How is he the owner of the cattle? Because he has authority over them in respect of what is ridden, tended, employed and so on. In what are you trying to employ memory, that you diligently seek the owner of memory by contrivance? You employ memory with respect to the object remembered. What is the employing of memory? It is making memory arise. How marvelous, to assert that one has authority and to speak so unreasonably: would one make this arise by employing this? And how would the self employ memory? Is it to make memory arise or to make memory act? Since memory has no action, it can only be to make it arise. Then the cause is called the owner, and the effect is called the possessed. The cause, through its dominance, makes the effect arise, and so the cause is called the owner; the effect, at the time of arising, belongs to the cause and so is called the possessed. The cause that gives rise to memory is itself sufficient to be the owner of memory; what need is there to set up a self as the owner of memory? In the same way, in a collection of conditioned factors of one kind in continuity, the world conventionally designates Caitra and cattle, and sets up the name Caitra as the owner of the cattle. The cattle continuum arising in a different place is a cause of transformed arising, and so is called owner. Here there is no single real Caitra and no real cattle, but only a provisional designation; and so one speaks of the owner of cattle, and yet it is not apart from the cause. As it is with recollection, so it is with remembering and knowing. As in explaining remembering and knowing, the questions of who is the knower and whose is the consciousness and so on should also be explained by analogy. Moreover, the causes and conditions of consciousness are different from the above, namely the faculty and the object and so on, as should be known. Someone says: There must be a self, because an activity must depend on one who acts. That is, activities depend on one who acts, as the walking of Devadatta must depend on Devadatta. Walking is the activity and Devadatta is the name of the agent; so too the activities of consciousness and the like must depend on a basis who is the knower and so on. Now we must ask: What is Devadatta? If it is a real self, this has been refuted before. If it is a provisional person, the substance is not one thing, since this name is provisionally set up for a continuum of conditioned factors. As Devadatta can walk, so consciousness can know. By what reasoning is it said that Devadatta can walk? In a continuum of momentarily arising and ceasing factors that do not differ, the name Devadatta is set up; foolish people take it as one entity. It is the cause of the arising of one's own continuum in a different place. Arising in a different place is called walking, and the cause is called the walker. According to this reasoning it is said that Devadatta can walk. As with a flame and with sound, which continue in a different place, the world says on this basis that the flame and the sound walk. Likewise, because Devadatta's body can be a cause of consciousness, the world also says that Devadatta can know. And the noble ones also speak so in accord with the principle of worldly usage. The sutra says that consciousnesses can know their objects; what does consciousness do with respect to its object? It does nothing at all, but merely arises from the object. Like a repayment of a cause: though it does nothing, it arises like the cause and is called a repayment of the cause. In the same way, when consciousness arises, though it does nothing, it resembles the object, and so is said to know the object. How does it resemble the object? It bears that object's aspect. For this reason, though consciousnesses also arise relying on the faculties, they are not called knowing the faculties but only knowing the objects. Or when consciousness arises continuously with respect to an object, the earlier consciousness is the cause that draws out the later consciousness, and there is no fault in saying that consciousness can know, because the world speaks of an agent in terms of the cause.

如世間說鍾鼓能鳴，或如燈能行，識能了亦爾。為依何理說燈能行？焰相續中假立燈號，燈於異處相續生時說為燈行，無別行者。如是心相續假立識名，於異境生時說名能了。或如色有色生色住，此中無別有生住者。說識能了，理亦應然。若後識生，從識非我。何緣從識？不恆似前，及不定次生，如芽莖葉等，有為皆有住異相故。謂諸有為自性法爾，微細相續後必異前。若異此者，縱意入定，身心相續相似而生，後念與初無差別故，不應最後念自然從定出。諸心相續亦有定次，若此心次彼心應生，於此心後彼必生故。亦有少分行相等心方能相生，種性別故。如女心無間起嚴汙身心，或起彼夫彼子心等。後時從此諸心相續轉變差別還生女心。如是女心於後所起嚴汙心等有生功能，異此無功能，由種性別故。女心無間容起多心，然多心中若先數起、明瞭近起，先起非餘。由如是心修力強故，唯除將起位身外緣差別。諸有修力最強盛者，寧不恆時生於自果？由此心有住異相故，此住異相於別修果相續生中最隨順故。諸心品類次第相生因緣方隅我已略說，委悉了達唯在世尊，一切法中智自在故。依如是義故，有頌言：

(The treatise continues:) As the world says that a bell or drum can sound, or as a lamp can move, so consciousness can know. By what reasoning is it said that a lamp can move? In a continuum of flame the name "lamp" is provisionally set up, and when the lamp arises in a continuum in a different place it is said that the lamp moves, and there is no separate mover. In the same way the name "consciousness" is provisionally set up in a continuum of mind, and when it arises with a different object it is said to know. Or as form has arising and abiding of form, though there is no separate one who arises and abides, so when one says consciousness can know, the reasoning should be the same. If a later consciousness arises, it arises from consciousness and not from a self. Why from consciousness? Because it is not constantly like the former, and because it does not arise in a fixed order, like a sprout, stem and leaves, since all conditioned things have the characteristics of abiding and change. That is, by the natural order of the own-nature of all conditioned things, a later subtle continuum must differ from the earlier. If it were otherwise, then even when the mind enters concentration, the body and mind would continue to arise similarly, and the later thought would not differ from the first, so the last thought should not emerge from concentration of itself. The mental continua also have a fixed order: if this mind is next, that mind should arise, because that mind certainly arises after this mind. Also only mind with a similar mode, in some part, can give rise to the next, since their lineage differs. For example, a woman's mind immediately gives rise to adorned or soiled body and mind, or gives rise to the minds of her husband or her son. Later, from the differences of transformation in the continuum of these minds, she again gives rise to a woman's mind. Thus a woman's mind has the capacity to give rise to the later adorned or soiled minds and so on, and otherwise has no such capacity, because of the difference of lineage. After a woman's mind, many minds could arise without interval, but among those many, the one that has been frequently arisen earlier, that is clear and recent, arises first, not the others. This is because the power of cultivation of that mind is strong, except at the stage when the mind is about to arise and the external conditions of the body differ. Would it not be that the one with the strongest power of cultivation always gives rise to its own effect? Because this mind has the characteristics of abiding and change, and these characteristics of abiding and change are the most favorable for the continuous arising of the effect of another cultivation. I have briefly described the direction of the causes and conditions by which the classes of mind arise in order; to understand them fully and completely lies only with the World-Honored One, who has mastery of knowledge in all dharmas. Because of this meaning, a verse says:

於一孔雀輪，一切種因相，

In a single peacock's wheel, the characteristics of all kinds of causes,

非餘智境界，唯一切智知。

are not the realm of other knowledge; only the Omniscient One knows.

色差別因尚為難了，況心心所諸無色法因緣差別可易了知？一類外道作如是執，諸心生時皆從於我。前之二難於彼最切。若諸心生皆從我者，何緣後識不恆似前，及不定次生，如芽莖葉等。若謂由待意合差別有異識生，理定不然，我與餘合非極成故，又二物合有分限故。謂彼自類釋合相言，非至為先、後至名合。我與意合應有分限，意移轉故我應移轉，或應與意俱有壞滅。若謂一分合，理定不然，於一我體中無別分故。設許有合，我體既常，意無別異，合寧有別？若待別覺，為難亦同。謂覺因何得有差別？若待行別，我意合者，則應但心待行差別能生異識，何用我為？我於識生都無有用，而言諸識皆從我生。如藥事成能除痼疾，誑醫矯說普莎訶言。若謂此二由我故有，此但有言，無理為證。若謂此二我為所依，如誰與誰為所依義？非心與行如畫如果，我為能持如壁如器，如是便有更相礙失，及有或時別住失故。非如壁器，我為彼依。若爾如何？此但如地，能為香等四物所依。彼如是言，證成無我，故我於此深生喜慰。如世間地不離香等，我亦應爾，非離心行。誰能了地離於香等？但於香等聚集差別，世俗流佈立以地名。我亦應然，但於心等諸蘊差別，假立我名。若離香等無別有地，如何說言地有香等？為顯地體有香等別，故即於地說有香等，令他了達是此非餘，如世間言木像身等。又若有我待行差別，何不俱時生一切智？若時此行功用最強，此能遮餘令不生果。寧從強者果不恒生？答此如前修力道理，許行非常漸變異故。若爾，計我則為唐捐，行力令心差別生故。彼行此修體無異故，必定應信我體實有，以有念等德句義故，德必依止實句義故，念等依餘理不成故。此證非理，不極成故。謂說念等德句義攝體皆非實，義不極成，許有別體皆名實故。經說六實物，名沙門果故。彼依實我，理亦不成。

Even the causes of the differences of form are hard to understand; how can the differences of causes and conditions of the formless dharmas, mind and mental factors, be easy to know? A kind of non-Buddhist holds that all minds arise from the self. The two difficulties above are most acute for him. If all minds arise from a self, why do later consciousnesses not constantly resemble the former, and why do they not arise in a fixed order, like a sprout, stem and leaves? If you say that different consciousnesses arise by waiting for differences in the combination with the mind, that is surely not so, because the combination of the self with something else is not established, and because a combination of two things has limits. Their school explains the characteristic of combination thus: reaching without first having reached is called combination. A combination of the self and the mind should have limits; because the mind moves, the self should move, or it should be destroyed together with the mind. If you say it is a combination of one part, that is surely not so, because there are no separate parts within a single self. If one allows that there is combination, since the self is permanent and the mind has no difference, how could the combination differ? If you wait for a different awareness, the difficulty is the same: through what cause could awareness differ? If you wait for a difference of activity in the combination of self and mind, then it would be that mind alone, waiting for differences of activity, could give rise to different consciousnesses; what use is the self? The self has no use at all in the arising of consciousnesses, and yet you say that all consciousnesses arise from the self. It is like a medicine that has already done its work and cured a chronic illness, while a false physician claims falsely that the cure came from saying "svaha." If you say these two exist because of the self, this is only words, with no reasoning as proof. If you say that the self is the support of these two, how is it, and who is the support of whom? It is not that mind and activity are like a painting or a fruit, and the self is the holder like a wall or a vessel; in that case there would be the fault of mutual obstruction and the fault of sometimes abiding separately. So the self is not a support for them like a wall or a vessel. If so, how? It is only like the earth, which can be the support of the four things, smell and so on. In saying this they establish no-self, and so I am deeply glad of it. As in the world, earth is not apart from smell and the like, so the self should be the same, not apart from mind and activity. Who can know earth apart from smell and the like? In the world, the name earth is set up and circulated only for the particular aggregate of smell and the like. The self should likewise be provisionally named only with respect to the particular aggregates of mind and the others. Apart from smell and the like there is no separate earth, so how can one say that earth has smell and so on? In order to show that the substance of earth has the distinction of smell and so on, one says of earth itself that it has smell and so on, so that others understand that it is this and not other, as the world speaks of a body of a wooden statue. Furthermore, if a self depended on differences in activity, why would it not give rise to omniscience all at once? If at that time the activity is of the strongest power, it can prevent the others from producing effects. Why would the effect of the strong one not always arise? The answer is as before, according to the principle of the power of cultivation, since activity is admitted to be impermanent and gradually changing. If so, to calculate a self is in vain, since it is the power of activity that causes the minds to arise differently. Because that activity and this cultivation are not different in substance, one must believe that the self has real existence, because there are memory and the other qualities, the category of quality, and qualities must depend on the category of substance; since memory and the like cannot be established as depending on anything else. This proof is not reasonable, because it is not established. That is, to say that memory and the like are included in the category of quality, and their substance is not real, is an unestablished meaning, since you allow that whatever has a separate substance is called a substance. The sutra speaks of six substances, called the fruits of the ascetic life. Their reliance on a real self is also not reasonable.

依義如前已遮遣故，由此所立但有虛言。若我實無，為何造業？為我當受苦樂果故。我體是何？謂我執境。何名我執境？謂諸蘊相續。云何知然？貪愛彼故。與白等覺同處起故。謂世有言：我白我黑。我老我少。我瘦我肥。現見世間緣白等覺，與計我執同處而生，非所計我有此差別，故知我執但緣諸蘊。以身於我有防護恩，故亦於身假說為我，如言臣等即是我身。於有恩中實假說我，而諸我執所取不然。若許緣身亦起我執，寧無我執緣他身起，他與我執不相屬故。謂若身若心與我執相屬，此我執起緣彼非餘，無始時來如是習故。相屬謂何？謂因果性。若無我體，誰之我執？此前已釋，寧復重來。謂我於前已作是說，為依何義說第六聲，乃至辨因為果所屬。若爾，我執以何為因？謂無始來我執燻習，緣自相續有垢染心。我體若無誰有苦樂？若依於此有苦樂生，即說名為此有苦樂，如林有果及樹有花。苦樂依何？謂內六處，隨其所起說為彼依。若我實無，誰能作業？誰能受果？作受何義？作謂能作，受謂受者。此但易名，未顯其義。辯法相者釋此相言：能自在為，名為作者。能領業果，得受者名。現見世間，於此事業若得自在，名為能作。如見天授於浴食行得自在故，名浴等者。此中汝等說何天授？若說實我，喻不極成；說蘊便非自在作者。業有三種，謂身、語、意。且起身業必依身心，身心各依自因緣轉，因緣展轉依自因緣，於中無一自在起者，一切有為屬因緣故。汝所執我，不待因緣亦無所作，故非自在。由此彼說能自在為名作者相，求不可得。然於諸法生因緣中，若有勝用假名作者，非所執我，見有少用故定不應名為作者。能生身業勝因者何？謂從憶念引生樂欲，樂欲生尋伺，尋伺生勤勇，勤勇生風，風起身業。汝所執我，此中何用？故於身業，我非作者。語意業起，類此應思。我復云何能領業果？

(The treatise continues:) By meaning it has already been refuted as before, so what is established by it is only empty words. If the self does not really exist, why does one create karma? Is it because the self will receive the fruits of pain and pleasure? What is the substance of the self? It is the object of self-grasping. What is called the object of self-grasping? It is the continuum of aggregates. How do we know this? Because one is attached to them, and because the notion of white and so on arises in the same place. For the world says: I am white, I am black, I am old, I am young, I am thin, I am fat. We plainly see that in the world the awareness taking white and so on as object arises in the same place as the calculation of self-grasping, and it is not that the self that is calculated has these differences, so we know that self-grasping takes only the aggregates as object. Because the body has the kindness of protecting the self, the body is also provisionally called the self, as when one says that ministers and the like are one's own body. Among those that have shown kindness one provisionally calls them "self," but what is grasped by self-grasping is not like this. If you allow that self-grasping also arises taking the body as object, why does self-grasping not arise taking another's body as object? Because the other's body is not connected with one's self-grasping. That is, self-grasping arises taking as object the body and mind that are connected with it and not others, because it has been practiced so since beginningless time. What is connected? It is the nature of cause and effect. If there is no self-substance, whose is the self-grasping? This was already explained before; why bring it up again? That is, I already said before, in explaining on what meaning the sixth case-ending is based, up to distinguishing cause as belonging to effect. If so, what is the cause of self-grasping? It is the perfuming of self-grasping since beginningless time, a defiled mind that takes its own continuum as object. If the self-substance does not exist, who has pain and pleasure? If pain and pleasure arise depending on this, one then says that this has pain and pleasure, as in "the forest has fruit" and "the tree has flowers." On what do pain and pleasure depend? On the six inner bases; as each arises, it is said to depend on that. If the self does not really exist, who can do karma? Who can receive the fruits? What is the meaning of doing and receiving? Doing means that which can do, and receiving means the one who receives. This is only a change of names and does not show the meaning. Those who explain the characteristics of dharmas say: One who can act freely is called the doer; one who can take up the fruit of the karma gains the name of receiver. In the world we plainly see that one who has mastery in this undertaking is called the one who can do it, as one sees that Devadatta has mastery in bathing, eating and walking, and so is called one who bathes and so on. What do you say Devadatta is here? If you say a real self, the example is not established; if you say the aggregates, they are not a free agent. Karma is of three kinds, bodily, verbal and mental. First, the arising of bodily karma necessarily depends on body and mind; body and mind each proceed by their own causes and conditions; the causes and conditions in turn depend on their own causes and conditions; and among these there is none that arises freely, since all conditioned things belong to causes and conditions. The self you hold to does not depend on causes and conditions and also does nothing, and therefore is not free. Thus the characteristic of the doer proposed by them, that which can act freely, cannot be found. However, among the causes and conditions for the arising of dharmas, if there is one with superior function it is provisionally called the doer, and the self you hold to is surely not fit to be called a doer, since it is not seen to have even a slight function. What is the superior cause that can produce bodily karma? From memory arises desire, from desire arise investigation and analysis, from these arises effort, from effort arises wind, and from wind arises bodily karma. What use is the self you hold in this? Therefore the self is not the doer of bodily karma. How verbal and mental karma arise should be considered along the same lines. And how can a self take up the fruits of karma?

若謂於果我能了別，此定不然，我於了別都無有用，於前分別生識因中已遮遣故。若實無我，如何不依諸非情處罪福生長？彼非愛等所依止故，唯內六處是彼所依。我非彼依，如前已說。若實無我，業已滅壞，云何復能生未來果？設有實我，業已滅壞，復云何能生未來果？從依止我，法非法生。如誰依誰，此前已破，故法非法不應依我。然聖教中不作是說，從已壞業未來果生。若爾，從何？從業相續轉變差別，如種生果。如世間說，果從種生。然果不從已壞種起，亦非從種無間即生。若爾，從何？從種相續轉變差別果方得生，謂種次生芽莖葉等，花為最後方引果生。若爾，何言從種生果？由種展轉引起花中生果功能，故作是說。若此花內生果功能非種為先所引起者，所生果相應與種別。如是雖言從業生果，而非從彼已壞業生，亦非從業無間生果，但從業相續轉變差別生。何名相續轉變差別？謂業為先，後色心起，中無間斷，名為相續。即此相續，後後剎那異前前生，名為轉變。即此轉變，於最後時有勝功能無間生果，勝餘轉變，故名差別。如有取識正命終時，雖帶眾多感後有業所引燻習，而重近起數習所引明瞭非餘。如有頌言：

(The treatise continues:) If you say that the self can discriminate the fruit, this is surely not so, since the self has no use at all in discrimination, which has already been refuted in the discussion of the cause of consciousness arising from discrimination before. If there really is no self, why do merit and demerit not grow depending on non-sentient bases? Because those are not the support of love and the like; only the six inner bases are their support. The self is not their support, as already said before. If there is really no self, once karma has perished, how can it again give rise to a future fruit? And if there is a real self, once karma has perished, how can it again give rise to a future fruit? From the self as support, it is said, dharma and non-dharma arise. Who depends on whom? This was refuted before, so dharma and non-dharma should not depend on a self. However, the noble teaching does not say that a future fruit arises from karma that has perished. If so, from what? From the particular transformation of the karmic continuum, like a seed giving rise to fruit. As the world says that fruit arises from seed. Yet the fruit does not arise from a seed that has perished, nor does it arise immediately from the seed. If so, from what? The fruit arises from the particular transformation of the seed's continuum, namely the seed successively gives rise to the sprout, stem and leaves, and the flower finally draws out the fruit. If so, why say that the fruit arises from the seed? Because the seed, through successive stages, draws out the capacity to produce fruit in the flower, one speaks thus. If the capacity within the flower to produce fruit were not drawn out in the first place by the seed, the fruit produced should be different from that seed. So although one says that a fruit arises from karma, it does not arise from karma that has already perished, nor from karma immediately, but from the particular transformation of the continuum of karma. What is called the particular transformation of the continuum? With karma first, later form and mind arise without interruption in between, and this is called continuity. This continuity, in later and later moments differing from earlier and earlier moments, is called transformation. This transformation, at the very last moment, has a superior capacity and immediately gives rise to the fruit, superior to the other transformations, and so it is called particular. For example, when a consciousness that clings is just about to die, though it bears the perfuming drawn out by many karmas that bring about later existence, what is clear is what is drawn out by the heaviest, the nearest, and the most frequently practiced, not the others. As a verse says:

業極重近起，數習先所作，

The karma that is heaviest, nearest, frequently practiced, or done earlier,

前前前後熟，輪轉於生死。

ripens in the order of former before latter, and one turns in the wheel of birth and death.

於此義中有差別者，異熟因所引與異熟果功能，與異熟果已即便謝滅。同類因所引與等流果功能，若染汙者對治起時即便謝滅，不染汙者般涅槃時方永謝滅，以色心相續爾時永滅故。何緣異熟果不能招異熟，如從種果有別果生。且非譬喻，是法皆等。然從種果無別果生。若爾，從何生於後果？從後熟變差別所生。謂於後時即前種果遇水土等諸熟變緣，便能引生熟變差別。正生芽位方得種名，未熟變時從當名說，或似種故世說為種。此亦如是，即前異熟遇聞正邪等諸起善惡緣，便能引生諸善有漏及諸不善有異熟心，從此引生相續轉變，展轉能引轉變差別，從此差別後異熟生，非從餘生。故喻同法。或由別法類此可知，如拘櫞花塗紫礦汁，相續轉變差別為因，後果生時瓤便色赤，從此赤色更不生餘。如是應知，從業異熟更不能引餘異熟生。前來且隨自覺慧境，於諸業果略顯麁相。其間異類差別功能，諸業所燻相續轉變，至彼彼位彼彼果生，唯佛證知非餘境界。依如是義，故有頌言：

In this respect there are differences: the capacity for the matured effect drawn out by the cause of maturation, having given the matured effect, perishes at once. The capacity for the effect of outflow drawn out by the homogeneous cause, if defiled, perishes at once when the antidote arises; if undefiled, it perishes forever only at parinirvana, since the continuum of form and mind is then forever extinguished. Why can the matured effect not bring about maturation, as a separate fruit arises from a seed's fruit? This is not an apt example, for all dharmas are equal. But from a seed's fruit no separate fruit arises. If so, from what does the later fruit arise? It arises from the particular ripening transformation later. That is, at a later time, the fruit of the earlier seed meets conditions for ripening transformation such as water and soil and so can draw out the particular ripening transformation. Only at the stage when the sprout is just arising is it given the name seed; before the ripening transformation it is named by what it will become, or because it resembles a seed the world calls it a seed. So too here: the earlier matured effect itself, meeting conditions that give rise to good or bad, such as hearing right or wrong teachings, can draw out various wholesome defiled minds and various unwholesome minds with maturation, and from these it draws out the transformation of the continuum, which in turn can draw out particular transformations, and from this particular transformation a later matured effect arises, not from anything else. So the example fits the dharma. Or one may understand by another example: when a citron flower is smeared with lac juice, the particular transformation of the continuum is the cause, and when the fruit arises the pulp becomes red, and from this redness nothing further arises. So one should know that from the matured effect of karma no other matured effect can be drawn out. So far we have followed the realm of our own understanding and wisdom and briefly shown the gross aspects of the fruits of karma. As for the particular capacities of various kinds in between, the transformation of the continuum perfumed by karmas, and the arising of this and that fruit at this and that stage, only the Buddha realizes and knows them, and they are not the realm of others. Because of this meaning, a verse says:

此業此燻習，至此時與果，

This karma, this perfuming, gives its fruit at this time;

一切種定理，離佛無能知。

the fixed principle of all seeds: apart from the Buddha none can know.

已善說此淨因道，謂佛至言真法性，

Having well taught this path of the pure cause, that is, the Buddha's true word and true nature of dharmas,

應捨闇盲諸外執，惡見所為求慧眼。

one should abandon the dark and blind clinging of non-Buddhists and seek the eye of wisdom for what evil views have done.

此涅槃宮一廣道，千聖所遊無我性，

This one broad road to the palace of nirvana, where a thousand sages have walked, the nature of no-self,

諸佛日言光所照，雖開殊眼不能覩。

lit by the sunlight of the Buddhas' words, cannot be seen even with eyes wide open.

於此方隅已略說，為開智者慧毒門，

On this direction I have spoken briefly, to open for the wise the gate of wisdom's poison,

庶各隨己力堪能，遍悟所知成勝業。

so that each according to his own strength may broadly awaken to what is to be known and accomplish superior works.