Abhidharmakosha-bhashya, Fascicle 8 (Sarvastivada)

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.