Abhidharmakosa-bhasya, Fascicle 15, of the Sarvastivada school

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: