Abhidharmakosha-bhashya, Fascicle 21 (Sarvastivada)

尊者世親造

Composed by the Venerable Vasubandhu

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang by imperial command

分別賢聖品第六之一

Chapter 6, Analysis of the Noble Ones, Part 1

如是已說煩惱等斷於九勝位得遍知名。然斷必由道力故得，此所由道其相云何？頌曰：

Thus it has been said that the elimination of afflictions and the rest obtains the name of full knowledge in nine superior stages. However, elimination is necessarily obtained by the power of the path; what are the characteristics of the path by which this is done? The verse says:

已說煩惱斷，由見諦修故，

It has been said that the elimination of afflictions is through seeing the truths and cultivation;

見道唯無漏，修道通二種。

the path of seeing is only undefiled, while the path of cultivation includes both kinds.

論曰：前已廣說諸煩惱斷，由見諦道及修道故。道唯無漏亦有漏耶？見道應知唯是無漏，修道通二。所以者何？見道速能治三界故。頓斷九品見所斷故，非世間道有此堪能，故見位中道唯無漏。修道有異故通二種，如向所言由見諦故。此所見諦其相云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The elimination of all afflictions was explained at length earlier as through the path of seeing the truths and the path of cultivation. Is the path only undefiled, or also defiled? It should be understood that the path of seeing is only undefiled, while the path of cultivation includes both. Why? Because the path of seeing swiftly counteracts the three realms and eliminates at once the nine grades eliminated by seeing; worldly paths have no such capacity, so the path in the stage of seeing is only undefiled. The path of cultivation differs, so it includes both kinds, as said earlier, because of seeing the truths. What are the characteristics of the truths seen here? The verse says:

諦四先已說，謂苦集滅道，

The four truths have been explained before, namely suffering, origin, cessation, and the path;

彼自體亦然，次第隨現觀。

their own natures are also so, and are realized in sequence.

論曰：諦有四種，名先已說。於何處說？謂初品中分別有漏無漏法處。彼如何說？謂彼頌言：無漏謂聖道，此說道諦。擇滅謂離繫，此說滅諦。及苦集世間，此說苦集諦。四諦次第如彼說耶？不爾。云何？如今所列：一苦、二集、三滅、四道。四諦自體亦有異耶？不爾。云何？如先所辯，為顯體同彼，故說亦然聲。四諦何緣如是次第？隨現觀位先後而說，謂現觀中先所觀者便在先說，若異此者應先說因後方說果。然或有法說次隨生，如念住等。或復有法說次隨便，如正勝等。謂此中無決定理趣起如是欲，先斷已生、後遮未生，但隨言便。今說四諦，隨瑜伽師現觀位中先後次第。何緣現觀次第必然？加行位中如是觀故。何緣加行必如是觀？謂若有法是愛著處能作逼惱，為求脫因，此法理應最初觀察，故修行者加行位中最初觀苦，苦即苦諦。次復觀苦以誰為因？便觀苦因，因即集諦。次復觀苦以誰為滅？便觀苦滅，滅即滅諦。後觀苦滅以誰為道？便觀滅道，道即道諦。如見病已，次尋病因，續思病癒，後求良藥。契經亦說諦次第喻。何契經說？謂《良醫經》。如彼經言：夫醫王者，謂具四德能拔毒箭：一善知病狀、二善知病因、三善知病癒、四善知良藥。如來亦爾，為大醫王，如實了知苦集滅道。故加行位如是次觀，現觀位中次第亦爾，由加行力所引發故，如已觀地縱馬奔馳。此現觀名為目何義？應知此目現等覺義。何緣說此唯是無漏？對向涅槃正覺境故，此覺真淨故得正名。應知此中果性取蘊名為苦諦，因性取蘊名為集諦，是能集故。由此苦集因果性分，名雖有殊非物有異。滅道二諦物亦有殊，何義經中說為聖諦？是聖者諦故得聖名。於非聖者此豈成妄？於一切是諦，性無顛倒故。然唯聖者實見非餘，是故經中但名聖諦。非非聖諦，顛倒見故。如有頌言：聖者說是樂，非聖說為苦；聖者說為苦，非聖說是樂。

The treatise says: There are four truths, whose names were stated earlier. Where were they stated? In the first chapter, in the analysis of tainted and untainted dharmas. How were they stated there? In that verse it says: the untainted is the noble path, which speaks of the truth of the path; cessation through deliberation is separation, which speaks of the truth of cessation; and suffering and origin are the world, which speaks of the truths of suffering and origin. Is the order of the four truths as stated there? No. How then? As now listed: first suffering, second origin, third cessation, fourth the path. Do the four truths also differ in their own substance? No. How then? As explained earlier, in order to show that the substance is the same as there, the word also was used. Why are the four truths in this order? They are spoken of according to the order in which they come in direct realization: what is observed first in direct realization is spoken of first; otherwise the cause should be spoken of first and the effect afterward. However, some dharmas are spoken of in the order in which they arise, such as the foundations of mindfulness, and some are spoken of in the order of convenience, such as the right efforts. That is, in the latter there is no fixed reason for the wish to first cut off what has arisen and then prevent what has not arisen, but one simply follows convenience in speech. Now the four truths are spoken of according to the order, in the yogin's direct realization, of what comes first and what later. Why must the order of direct realization be so? Because one observes in this way in the stage of preparation. Why must one observe in this way in preparation? If there is a dharma that is the object of attachment, can cause torment, and is sought to be escaped by a cause, one should by reason observe it first; therefore in the stage of preparatory practice one first observes suffering, and suffering is the truth of suffering. Next one observes by what suffering is caused, and observes the cause of suffering; the cause is the truth of origin. Next one observes by what suffering is ended, and observes the cessation of suffering; cessation is the truth of cessation. Last one observes by what the cessation of suffering is reached, and observes the path to cessation; the path is the truth of the path. It is like seeing a disease, then searching for its cause, then thinking of its cure, and finally seeking a good medicine. The sutras also give an analogy for the order of the truths. Which sutra? The Good Physician Sutra. As that sutra says: The king of physicians has four qualities that enable him to draw out poisoned arrows: first, he knows the symptoms of the illness well; second, he knows the cause of the illness well; third, he knows the cure of the illness well; fourth, he knows good medicine well. The Tathagata is likewise the great physician king, who knows suffering, origin, cessation and the path as they really are. Therefore one observes in this order in the stage of preparation, and in the stage of direct realization the order is also so, being induced by the power of preparation, like one who has already surveyed the ground and then gallops his horse. What does the term direct realization (abhisamaya) mean? It should be known that it means present, complete awakening. Why is it said to be only untainted? Because it faces nirvana, the object of right awakening, and this awakening is truly pure and so gains the name right. It should be known that here the aggregates of grasping that are of the nature of effect are called the truth of suffering, and the aggregates of grasping that are of the nature of cause are called the truth of origin, because they can accumulate. By this division of suffering and origin into cause and effect, although the names differ, the things are not different. The truths of cessation and the path also differ as things; why are they said in the sutras to be noble truths? Because they are the truths of the noble, they gain the name noble. Is this not false with regard to the non-noble? For all, they are truths, whose nature is without inversion. But only the noble truly see them and not others, and therefore in the sutras they are simply called noble truths. They are not non-noble truths, since the non-noble have inverted views. As a verse says: What the noble call pleasant, the non-noble call painful; what the noble call painful, the non-noble call pleasant.

有餘師說：二唯聖諦，餘二通是聖非聖諦。唯受一分是苦自體，所餘並非。如何可言諸有漏行皆是苦諦？頌曰：

Other teachers say: the latter two are only noble truths, and the other two extend to being noble or non-noble truths. Only a portion of feeling is the substance of suffering, and the rest are not. How can one say that all tainted formations are the truth of suffering? The verse says:

苦由三苦合，如所應一切，

Suffering is by the combination of three kinds of suffering, as appropriate for all,

可意非可意，餘有漏行法。

agreeable, disagreeable, and the other tainted formations.

論曰：有三苦性，一苦苦性、二行苦性、三壞苦性。諸有漏行如其所應，與此三種苦性合故，皆是苦諦亦無有失。此中可意有漏行法，與壞苦合故名為苦。諸非可意有漏行法，與苦苦合故名為苦。除此所餘有漏行法，與行苦合故名為苦。何謂為可意非可意餘？謂樂等三受如其次第，由三受力令順樂受等諸有漏行得可意等名。所以者何？若諸樂受由壞成苦性。如契經言。諸樂受生時樂住時樂壞時苦，若諸苦受由體成苦性。如契經言：諸苦受生時苦、住時苦。不苦不樂受由行成苦性，眾緣造故。如契經言：若非常即是苦。如受順受，諸行亦然。有餘師釋：苦即苦性名苦苦性，如是乃至行即苦性名行苦性。應知此中說可意非可意為壞苦苦苦者，由不共故。理實一切行苦故苦，此唯聖者所能觀見。故有頌言：

The treatise says: There are three natures of suffering: first the nature of suffering as pain, second the nature of suffering as formation, third the nature of suffering as change. Because all tainted formations, as appropriate, combine with these three natures of suffering, they are all the truth of suffering, and there is no fault. Among them, the agreeable tainted formations are called suffering because they combine with the suffering of change. The disagreeable tainted formations are called suffering because they combine with the suffering of pain. Other tainted formations apart from these are called suffering because they combine with the suffering of formation. What are agreeable, disagreeable and the others? They are the three feelings of pleasure and so on, in order, and by the force of the three feelings, the tainted formations that accord with pleasant feeling and so on gain the names agreeable and the rest. Why? Pleasant feelings become suffering by way of change. As a sutra says: pleasant feelings are pleasant when they arise, pleasant when they abide, and painful when they change. Painful feelings become suffering by their very substance. As a sutra says: painful feelings are painful when they arise and painful when they abide. Neither-painful-nor-pleasant feelings become suffering by way of formation, because they are made by many conditions. As a sutra says: whatever is impermanent is suffering. As feelings accord with feelings, so do the formations. Another explanation by other teachers: suffering that is itself suffering is called the nature of suffering as pain, and so on until formation that is itself suffering is called the nature of suffering as formation. It should be known that here agreeable and disagreeable are said to be the suffering of change and the suffering of pain because they are uncommon. In truth, all formations are suffering because they are formations, and this can be observed only by the noble. Therefore a verse says:

如以一睫毛，置掌人不覺，

As when a single eyelash is placed in the palm, a person does not notice it,

若置眼睛上，為損及不安。

but if it is placed on the eyeball, it causes harm and discomfort.

愚夫如手掌，不覺行苦睫，

The foolish are like the palm, not noticing the eyelash of the suffering of formation,

智者如眼睛，緣極生厭怖。

the wise are like the eye, and from meeting it conceive aversion and fear.

以諸愚夫於無間獄受劇苦蘊生苦怖心，不如眾聖於有頂蘊。道諦亦應是行苦攝，有為性故。道諦非苦，違逆聖心是行苦相。非聖道起違逆聖心，由此能引眾苦盡故。若觀諸有為涅槃寂靜者，亦由先見彼法是苦、後觀彼滅以為寂靜，故有為言唯顯有漏。若諸法中亦許有樂，何緣但說苦為聖諦？有一類釋：由樂少故。如置綠豆烏豆聚中，以少從多名烏豆聚。誰有智者瀝水澆癰有少樂生，計癰為樂？有餘於此以頌釋言：

(The treatise continues:) The foolish give rise to a mind of fear of suffering through the aggregates of intense suffering in the Avici hell, but this is not like the many noble ones with regard to the aggregates of the Peak of Existence. The truth of the path should also be included in the suffering of formation, because it is conditioned. The path is not suffering, but being contrary to the noble mind is the aspect of the suffering of formation. It is not that the noble path arises contrary to the noble mind, since it can lead to the end of all suffering. Those who observe that conditioned dharmas are nirvana, tranquil, also first see that those dharmas are suffering and afterward observe their cessation as tranquility; and so the word conditioned shows only the tainted. If there may also be pleasure in dharmas, why is only suffering spoken of as the noble truth? Some explain: because pleasure is little. Just as when one puts green beans in a heap of black beans, one names it a heap of black beans according to the majority, so too. What wise person, pouring water on an abscess and feeling a little pleasure, would regard the abscess as pleasant? Others explain this in a verse:

能為苦因故，能集眾苦故，

Because it can be a cause of suffering, because it can accumulate many sufferings,

有苦希彼故，說樂亦名苦。

because there is suffering that longs for it, pleasure is also called suffering.

理實應言，聖者觀察諸有及樂體皆是苦，以就行苦同一味故，由此立苦為諦非樂。如何亦觀樂受為苦？由性非常違聖心故。如以苦相觀色等時，非彼苦相一如苦受。有謂樂受是苦因故。諸聖亦觀彼為苦者，此釋非理，能為苦因是集行相，豈關於苦？又諸聖者生色無色，緣彼如何有苦想轉？非彼諸蘊為苦受因。又經復說行苦何用？若由非常觀樂為苦，非常苦觀行相何別？生滅法故觀為非常，違聖心故觀之為苦。但見非常知違聖心，故非常行相能引苦行相。有餘部師作如是執：定無實樂，受唯是苦。云何知然？由教、理故。云何由教？如世尊言：諸所有受無非是苦。又契經言：汝應以苦觀於樂受。又契經言：於苦謂樂名為顛倒。云何由理？以諸樂因皆不定故。謂諸所有衣服飲食冷煖等事，諸有情類許為樂因，此若非時過量受用便能生苦，復成苦因不應樂因。於增盛位或雖平等，但由非時，便成苦因能生於苦。故知衣等本是苦因，苦增盛時其相方顯。威儀易脫理亦應然。又治苦時方起樂覺，及苦易脫樂覺乃生。謂若未遭飢渴寒熱疲欲等苦所逼迫時，不於樂因生於樂覺。故於對治重苦因中，愚夫妄計此能生樂，實無決定能生樂因。苦易脫中愚夫謂樂，如荷重擔暫易肩等。故受唯苦，定無實樂。對法諸師言樂實有，此言應理。云何知然？且應反徵撥無樂者何名為苦？若謂逼迫既有適悅，有樂應成。若謂損害既有饒益，有樂應成。若謂非愛既有可愛，有樂應成。若謂可愛體非成實，以諸聖者於離染時，可愛復成非可愛故。不爾。可愛聖離染時，由異門觀為非愛故。謂若有受自相可愛，此受未常成非可愛。然諸聖者於離染時，以餘行相厭患此受，謂觀此受是放逸處，要由廣大功力所成變壞無常故非可愛，非彼自相是非愛法。若彼自體是非可愛，不應於中有起愛者。

(The treatise continues:) In truth it should be said that the noble, observing all existences and the substance of pleasure, take them all to be suffering, because with regard to the suffering of formation they are of one flavor; for this reason suffering is established as the truth, not pleasure. How do they also observe pleasant feeling as suffering? Because by nature it is impermanent and contrary to the noble mind. When one observes form and the like with the aspect of suffering, that aspect of suffering is not wholly the same as painful feeling. Some say that pleasant feeling is a cause of suffering, and that the noble also observe it as suffering for this reason, but this explanation is not reasonable: being able to be a cause of suffering is the aspect of origin, so how does it relate to suffering? Moreover, when noble ones are born in the form and formless realms, how can an idea of suffering arise with those realms as object? Those aggregates are not causes of painful feeling. And what use would it be for the sutra to speak again of the suffering of formation? If one observes pleasure as suffering through impermanence, how does the aspect of impermanence differ from the aspect of suffering? One observes it as impermanent because it is a dharma of arising and ceasing, and observes it as suffering because it is contrary to the noble mind. Only when one sees impermanence does one know that it is contrary to the noble mind, and so the aspect of impermanence can lead to the aspect of suffering. Some other school teachers hold the following view: there is certainly no real pleasure, and feeling is only suffering. How is this known? By scripture and by reason. How by scripture? As the World-Honored One said: all feelings without exception are suffering. A sutra also says: you should observe pleasant feeling as suffering. A sutra also says: regarding suffering as pleasure is called inversion. How by reason? Because the causes of pleasure are all indeterminate. That is, clothing, food and drink, cold and warmth and so on, which sentient beings admit to be causes of pleasure, can give rise to suffering if used at the wrong time or in excess, and so become causes of suffering and should not be causes of pleasure. In a state of excess, or even in equality, it is only because of the wrong time that they become causes of suffering and give rise to suffering. Therefore it is known that clothing and so on are basically causes of suffering, and their aspect becomes evident only when suffering increases. The easy release of postures should be understood in the same way. Moreover, the sense of pleasure arises only when suffering is being treated, and when suffering is easily released. That is, if one is not oppressed by suffering such as hunger, thirst, cold, heat or fatigue, one does not give rise to a sense of pleasure from the causes of pleasure. So in the causes that counter heavy suffering, fools wrongly suppose that these can give rise to pleasure, but in fact there is no determinate cause that can give rise to pleasure. In the easy release of suffering, fools take it to be pleasure, as when one shifts a heavy load from one shoulder to the other. Therefore feeling is only suffering and there is certainly no real pleasure. The Abhidharma masters say that pleasure is real, and this statement accords with reason. How is it known to be so? First, those who deny pleasure should be asked in return: what is called suffering? If you say that since oppression is present, enjoyment is also present, then pleasure should be established. If you say that since harm is present, benefit is also present, then pleasure should be established. If you say that since the disagreeable is present, the agreeable is also present, then pleasure should be established. If you say that the substance of the agreeable is not truly established, because for noble ones at the time of detachment the agreeable becomes disagreeable, it is not so. When the noble detach from the agreeable, it is because they observe it as disagreeable through a different approach. That is, if a feeling is by its own nature agreeable, that feeling never becomes disagreeable. However, when noble ones detach, they feel weariness toward this feeling through other aspects, namely observing that this feeling is a ground of heedlessness, that it is produced only by great effort, and that it is changing and impermanent, and so it is not agreeable; it is not that its own nature is a disagreeable dharma. If its own substance were disagreeable, craving should not arise in it.

若不起愛，於離染時聖者不應以餘行相觀察樂受深生厭患，故由自相有實樂受。然世尊言諸所有受無非苦者，佛自釋通。如契經言：佛告慶喜：我依諸行皆是無常，及諸有為皆是變壞，密作是說。諸所有受無非是苦，故知此經不依苦苦作如是說。若由自相說受皆苦，何緣慶喜作是問言：佛於餘經說有三受，謂樂及苦、不苦不樂。依何密意此經復言諸所有受無非是苦？慶喜但應作如是問：依何密意說有三受？世尊亦應但作是答：我依此密意，故說有三受。經中既無如是問答，故由自相實有三受。世尊既言我密意說諸所有受無非是苦，即已顯示此所說經依別意說非真了義。又契經言，汝應以苦觀樂受者，應知此經意顯樂受有二種性：一有樂性，謂此樂受依自相門是可愛故；二有苦性，謂依異門亦是無常變壞法故。然觀樂時能為繫縛，諸有貪者噉此味故。若觀苦時能令解脫，如是觀者得離貪故。佛以觀苦能令解脫，故勸有情觀樂為苦。如何知此自相是樂？如有頌言：

(The treatise continues:) If craving did not arise, then at the time of detachment the noble should not observe pleasant feeling through other aspects and give rise to deep weariness; therefore, by its own nature there is real pleasant feeling. Yet the World-Honored One said that all feelings without exception are suffering, and the Buddha himself explained this. As a sutra says: The Buddha told Ananda: Relying on the fact that all formations are impermanent and all conditioned things are changing and decaying, I spoke with a hidden meaning, saying that all feelings without exception are suffering. Therefore it is known that this sutra does not speak in this way according to the suffering of pain. If all feelings were suffering by their own nature, why did Ananda ask: In other sutras the Buddha says there are three feelings, pleasant, painful and neither-painful-nor-pleasant? With what hidden meaning does this sutra again say that all feelings without exception are suffering? Ananda should simply have asked: With what hidden meaning do you say there are three feelings? And the World-Honored One should simply have answered: I have said there are three feelings with this hidden meaning. Since there is no such question and answer in the sutra, there are really three feelings by their own nature. Since the World-Honored One said that he spoke with a hidden meaning in saying that all feelings without exception are suffering, he has already shown that the sutra is spoken according to another intention and is not of definitive meaning. As for the sutra that says you should observe pleasant feeling as suffering, it should be known that the meaning of this sutra is to show that pleasant feeling has two natures: first, it has the nature of pleasure, since it is agreeable in the aspect of its own nature; second, it has the nature of suffering, since, by another approach, it is also a dharma of impermanence and decay. However, when one observes it as pleasure, it can be a bond, since those with craving relish its taste. When one observes it as suffering, it can bring liberation, since one who observes it thus attains detachment from craving. Since the Buddha says that observing suffering can bring liberation, he urges sentient beings to observe pleasure as suffering. How do we know that its own nature is pleasure? As a verse says:

諸佛正遍覺，知諸行非常，

The Buddhas, perfectly and completely awakened, know that all formations are impermanent,

及有為變壞，故說受皆苦。

and that the conditioned is changing and decaying, and so they say that all feelings are suffering.

又契經言於苦謂樂名顛倒者，此別意說，以諸世間於諸樂受妙欲諸有一分樂中一向計樂故成顛倒。謂諸樂受若依異門亦有苦性，然諸世間唯觀為樂故成顛倒。諸妙欲境樂少苦多，唯觀為樂故成顛倒。諸有亦然，故不由此能證樂受無實理成。若受自相實皆苦者，佛說三受有何勝利？若謂世尊隨俗說者，不應正理。以世尊言我密說受無非苦故。又於觀五受說如實言故。謂契經說：所有樂根、所有喜根，應知此二皆是樂受，乃至廣說。復作是說：若以正慧如實觀見如是五根三結永斷，乃至廣說。又佛如何於一苦受，隨順世俗分別說三？若謂世間於下上中苦，如其次第起樂等三覺，佛隨順彼說樂等三。理亦不然，樂亦三故，應於下等三苦唯起上等樂覺。又受殊勝香味觸等所生樂時，有何下苦而世於中起樂受覺？若許爾時有下苦者，如是下苦已滅未生，世應爾時有極樂覺，此位眾苦都無有故。受欲樂時徵問亦爾。又下品受現在前時，許受分明猛利可取，許中品受現在前時，與此相違，如何應理？又下三定說有樂故，應有下苦；以上諸地說有捨故，應有中苦。定勝苦增，豈應正理？故不應依下等三苦如次建立樂等三受。又契經說：佛告大名：若色一向是苦非樂，非樂所隨，乃至廣說。故知定有少分實樂。如是且辯彼所引教，顯無實樂為證不成，所立理言亦不成證。且以諸樂因皆不定故者，此非正理，迷因義故。謂觀所依分位差別，諸外境界方為樂因或為苦因，非唯外境。若此外境至此所依如是分位能為樂因，未嘗至此不為樂因，是故樂因非不決定。如世間火，觀所煮炙分位差別，為美熟因或為違因，非唯彼火。若此火至此所煮炙如是分位為美熟因，未嘗至此非美熟因，故美熟因非不決定。樂因亦爾，決定理成。又三靜慮中樂因豈不定？彼因無時能生苦故。又彼所說要治苦時起樂覺者，準前已破。

(The treatise continues:) Moreover, the sutra says that regarding suffering as pleasure is inversion, and this is said with another intention: the worldly all hold pleasant feelings, excellent desirable objects and some existences to be entirely pleasant within a portion of pleasure, and so fall into inversion. That is, although pleasant feelings also have the nature of suffering through a different approach, the worldly observe them only as pleasure and so fall into inversion. In excellent desirable objects pleasure is little and suffering is much, and the worldly observe them only as pleasure and so fall into inversion. Existences are likewise, so it cannot be established from this that pleasant feeling has no real basis. If the own nature of feeling were truly all suffering, what advantage would there be in the Buddha speaking of three feelings? If you say that the World-Honored One spoke according to worldly convention, that is not correct reasoning, because the World-Honored One said that he spoke with a hidden meaning in saying that feelings are all without exception suffering. Moreover, in observing five feelings it is said that one speaks in accord with reality. A sutra says: the faculty of pleasure and the faculty of joy, it should be known that both are pleasant feelings, and so on at length. It also says: if one observes these five faculties as they really are with right wisdom, the three fetters are permanently cut off, and so on at length. Furthermore, how could the Buddha, regarding a single painful feeling, speak of three according to worldly convention? If you say that the worldly give rise to the three perceptions of pleasure and so on regarding lower, higher and middle suffering respectively, and that the Buddha speaks of the three of pleasure and so on in accord with them, this is also unreasonable, because pleasure also being three, one would give rise only to the perception of higher pleasure in the lower three sufferings and so on. Also, when one experiences the pleasure produced by excellent smells, tastes, touches and the like, what lower suffering is there that the worldly give rise to a perception of pleasant feeling in the middle? If you admit that there is then a lower suffering, this lower suffering has already ceased and not yet arisen, and the worldly should then have a perception of extreme pleasure, since at this moment all suffering is absent. The same question applies at the time of experiencing pleasure of desire. Moreover, when a lower-grade feeling is present, you admit that feeling is clear, sharp and graspable, and when a middle-grade feeling is present you admit that it is the opposite of this; how is this reasonable? Also, since pleasure is said to exist in the lower three concentrations, there should be a lower suffering there; since equanimity is said to exist in the higher grounds, there should be a middle suffering there. That suffering would be greater in the more excellent concentrations; how could this be correct reasoning? Therefore one should not establish the three feelings of pleasure and so on according to the lower, middle and upper three sufferings respectively. Moreover, a sutra says: The Buddha told Mahanama: If form were always only suffering and not pleasure, and not followed by pleasure, and so on at length. Therefore it is known that there is certainly a small portion of real pleasure. In this way, the scripture they cited has been addressed, showing that the proof that there is no real pleasure is not established, and the reasoning they proposed is not a proof either. First, saying that the causes of pleasure are all indeterminate is not correct reasoning, since it misunderstands the meaning of cause. One must observe the differences in the states of the basis: external objects are causes of pleasure or causes of suffering only according to this, not by external objects alone. If this external object, when it reaches this state of the basis, can be a cause of pleasure, then it has never reached this state without being a cause of pleasure; and so the causes of pleasure are not indeterminate. Like worldly fire: one observes the differences in the state of what is being cooked or roasted, and it is a cause of tasty cooking or a cause of its opposite not by that fire alone. If this fire, when it reaches this state of what is cooked or roasted, is a cause of tasty cooking, it never reaches this state without being a cause of tasty cooking, and so the cause of tasty cooking is not indeterminate. The causes of pleasure are likewise, and the reasoning is established as definite. Furthermore, are the causes of pleasure in the three concentrations indeterminate? Those causes never give rise to suffering. And their claim that the sense of pleasure arises only when suffering is treated has been refuted by what was said earlier.

謂受殊勝香味觸等所生樂時，對治何苦而世於中起於樂覺？設許爾時治麁苦者，此能治苦已滅未生，爾時轉應生極樂覺。又靜慮樂治何故生？如是等破準前應說。又彼所說苦易脫中樂覺乃生如易肩者，此身分位實能生樂，乃至身如是分位未滅前必有樂生，滅則不爾。若異此者，此位後時樂應轉增，苦漸微故。如是易脫身四威儀生樂解勞應知亦爾。若先無苦，於最後時何為欻然生於苦覺？由身變易分位別故，如酒等後時有甘醋味起，是故樂受實有理成。由此定知，諸有漏行三苦合故如應名苦。即苦行體亦名集諦，此說必定違越契經，契經唯說愛為集故。經就勝故說愛為集，理實所餘亦是集諦。如是理趣由何證知？餘契經中亦說餘故。如薄伽梵伽他中言：

(The treatise continues:) When one experiences pleasure produced by excellent smells, tastes, touches and the like, what suffering is being treated that the worldly give rise to a sense of pleasure in it? Even if you admit that at that time it treats coarse suffering, the suffering that can be treated has already ceased and not yet arisen, and at that time one should then give rise to extreme pleasure. And why does the pleasure of the dhyanas arise as treatment? These and the other refutations should be stated as before. Moreover, their claim that the sense of pleasure arises only in easy release from suffering, as in shifting a load from one shoulder to the other, is as follows: this bodily state can truly produce pleasure, and until the body is in such a state and has not yet ceased, there must be pleasure arising; when it ceases, it is not so. If it were otherwise, the pleasure of this state should increase later, since suffering gradually diminishes. The pleasure and relief of fatigue arising from the easy release of the four postures of the body should also be understood in this way. If there had been no suffering before, why would a feeling of suffering suddenly arise at the very end? It is because the state of the body has changed, as sweet and sour tastes arise later from wine and the like; therefore it is established by reason that pleasant feeling is real. From this it is certain that all tainted formations are called suffering as appropriate because they combine with the three sufferings. Some say that the very substance of the suffering formations is also the truth of origin, but this certainly contradicts the sutras, since the sutras say only that craving is origin. The sutra says that craving is origin according to what is most excellent, but in truth the others are also the truth of origin. By what is this reasoning known? Because other sutras also speak of others. As in a gatha spoken by the Bhagavan:

業愛及無明，為因招後行，

Karma, craving and ignorance, as causes bring about later formations,

令諸有相續，名補特伽羅。

making existences continue; this is called the person (pudgala).

又契經說五種種子，此即別名說有取識。又彼經說置地界中，此即別名說四識住。故經所說是密意言，阿毘達磨依法相說。然經中說愛為集者，偏說起因。伽他中說業愛無明皆為因者，具說生起及彼因因。云何知爾？業為生因、愛為起因，經所說故。又彼經中次第顯示後行業有因有緣有緒故。為別建立種子及田，說有取識及四識住，故非唯愛為集諦體。何法名生？何法名起？界趣生等品類差別自體出現，說名為生。若無差別後有相續，說名為起。業與有愛如其次第為彼二因，譬如種子與穀麥等別種類芽為能生因、水與一切無差別芽為能起因，業及有愛為生起因應知亦爾。愛為起因何理為證？離愛後有必不起故。謂有愛離愛二俱命終，唯見有愛者後有更起。由此理證愛為起因，起有起無定隨愛故。又由愛故相續趣後，現見若於是處有愛，則心相續數趣於彼。由此比知，以有愛故能令相續馳趣後有。又取後身，更無有法封執堅著如貪愛者，如蓽豆屑於澡浴時和水塗身，至乾燥位著身難離，餘無以加。如是無有餘為因法，執取後身如我愛者，由此理證愛為起因。如是世尊說諦有四。餘經復說：諦有二種，一世俗諦、二勝義諦。如是二諦，其相云何？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) Moreover, a sutra speaks of five kinds of seeds, which by another name speak of consciousness with grasping. That sutra also speaks of placing seeds in the earth element, which by another name speaks of the four stations of consciousness. Therefore what is said in the sutras is spoken with hidden meaning, while the Abhidharma speaks according to the characteristics of dharmas. However, saying in the sutras that craving is origin speaks only of the cause of arising. Saying in the gatha that karma, craving and ignorance are all causes fully speaks of arising and the causes of those causes. How is this known? Because the sutra says that karma is the cause of birth and craving is the cause of arising. Moreover, that sutra successively shows that later formations and karma have causes, conditions and threads. In order to separately establish seed and field, it speaks of consciousness with grasping and the four stations of consciousness, and so it is not only craving that is the substance of the truth of origin. What dharma is called birth? What dharma is called arising? The appearance of the distinct natures of realm, destiny, birth and so on is called birth. The continuation of future existence without such distinction is called arising. Karma and craving for existence are, in order, the causes of those two, just as seed is the producing cause of sprouts of different kinds such as grain and wheat, while water is the arising cause of sprouts of all kinds without distinction; karma and craving for existence as the causes of birth and arising should be understood likewise. What reasoning proves that craving is the cause of arising? Because without craving future existence certainly does not arise. That is, of those with craving and those without craving, both dying, only for those with craving does future existence arise again. By this reasoning it is proved that craving is the cause of arising, since the arising or non-arising of existence definitely follows craving. Moreover, because of craving the continuum goes toward the future: one sees that wherever there is craving, the mind's continuum repeatedly goes toward it. From this one infers that, because of craving for existence, the continuum is made to hasten toward future existence. Furthermore, in taking a future body there is no dharma that seals and clings as firmly as craving, like green-bean powder, which when mixed with water and smeared on the body at bathing, once dry clings to the body and is hard to remove, with nothing else that compares. Thus there is no other causal dharma that grasps a future body as the love of self does; by this reasoning it is proved that craving is the cause of arising. Thus the World-Honored One said there are four truths. Other sutras also say that there are two kinds of truths: first the conventional truth, second the ultimate truth. What are the characteristics of these two truths? The verse says:

彼覺破便無，慧析餘亦爾，

When the awareness of it is destroyed it ceases, and when wisdom analyzes the others it is likewise,

如瓶水世俗，異此名勝義。

like a pot or water, which is conventional; what differs from this is called ultimate.

論曰：若彼物覺彼破便無，彼物應知名世俗諦。如瓶被破為碎凡時瓶覺則無，衣等亦爾。又若有物以慧析餘彼覺便無亦是世俗，如水被慧析色等時水覺則無，火等亦爾。即於彼物未破析時，以世想名施設為彼，施設有故名為世俗。依世俗理說有瓶等是實非虛，名世俗諦。若物異此，名勝義諦。謂彼物覺彼破不無，及慧析餘彼覺仍有，應知彼物名勝義諦。如色等物碎至極微，或以勝慧析除味等，彼覺恆有，受等亦然，此真實有故名勝義。依勝義理說有色等是實非虛，名勝義諦。先軌範師作如是說：如出世智及此後得世間正智所取諸法名勝義諦，如此餘智所取諸法名世俗諦。已辯諸諦，應說云何方便勤修趣見諦道。頌曰：

The treatise says: If the awareness of a thing ceases when that thing is destroyed, that thing should be known as a conventional truth. For example, when a pot is broken into potsherds, the awareness of the pot ceases; clothing and the like are likewise. Moreover, if the awareness of a thing ceases when wisdom analyzes its other components, it is also conventional; for example, when water is analyzed by wisdom into form and the like, the awareness of water ceases, and fire and the like are likewise. That is, before the thing is destroyed or analyzed, it is designated by worldly conception and name, and because of this designation it is called conventional. According to the conventional principle, it is said that pots and the like exist, are real and not false, and this is called the conventional truth. If a thing differs from this, it is called the ultimate truth. That is, when the awareness of a thing does not cease even when that thing is destroyed, and when the awareness remains even when wisdom analyzes its other components, that thing should be known as the ultimate truth. For example, when material things such as form are broken down to atoms, or the taste and so on are analyzed away by superior wisdom, the awareness remains constant, and feeling and the like are also so; because these truly exist, they are called ultimate. According to the ultimate principle, it is said that form and so on exist, are real and not false, and this is called the ultimate truth. The earlier masters said: the dharmas taken by supramundane wisdom and by the later-attained worldly right wisdom are called the ultimate truth, and the dharmas taken by other wisdoms are called the conventional truth. The truths having been explained, how should one diligently cultivate and approach the path of seeing the truths? The verse says:

將趣見諦道，應住戒勤修，

One about to approach the path of seeing the truths should abide in morality and diligently cultivate,

聞思修所成，謂名俱義境。

what is accomplished by hearing, reflection and cultivation, taking name, both and meaning as objects.

論曰：諸有發心將趣見諦，應先安住清淨屍羅，然後勤修聞所成等。謂先攝受順見諦聞，聞已勤求所聞法義，聞法義已無倒思惟，思已方能依定修習。行者如是住戒勤修，依聞所成慧起思所成慧，依思所成慧起修所成慧。此三慧相差別云何？毘婆沙師謂三慧相緣名俱義如次有別：聞所成慧唯緣名境，未能捨文而觀義故。思所成慧緣名義境，有時由文引義、有時由義引文，未全捨文而觀義故。修所成慧唯緣義境，已能捨文唯觀義故。譬若有人浮深駛水，曾未學者不捨所依，曾學未成或捨或執，曾善學者不待所依自力浮渡。三慧亦爾。有言：若爾，思慧不成。謂此既通緣名緣義，如次應是聞修所成。今詳三相無過別者，謂修行者依聞至教所生勝慧名聞所成，依思正理所生勝慧名思所成，依修等持所生勝慧名修所成。說所成言顯三勝慧是聞思等三因所成，猶如世間於命牛等如次說是食草所成。諸有欲於修精勤學者，如何淨身器令修速成？頌曰：

The treatise says: Those who have set their minds to approach the seeing of the truths should first abide in pure morality (shila), and then diligently cultivate what is accomplished by hearing and so on. That is, one first takes up hearing that accords with seeing the truths, and having heard, diligently seeks the meaning of the Dharma that has been heard; having heard the meaning of the Dharma, one reflects without inversion, and having reflected, one can then cultivate relying on concentration. A practitioner who abides in morality and cultivates diligently in this way gives rise to wisdom accomplished by reflection relying on wisdom accomplished by hearing, and gives rise to wisdom accomplished by cultivation relying on wisdom accomplished by reflection. How do these three wisdoms differ in their characteristics? The Vaibhashikas say that the three wisdoms differ in their objects in order: names, both name and meaning, and meaning. The wisdom accomplished by hearing takes only name as its object, since it cannot yet leave the text and observe the meaning. The wisdom accomplished by reflection takes name and meaning as its objects; sometimes the text leads to the meaning and sometimes the meaning leads to the text, since it has not entirely left the text in observing the meaning. The wisdom accomplished by cultivation takes only meaning as its object, since it can already leave the text and observe only the meaning. It is like a person floating in deep, swift water: one who has never learned does not let go of what supports him; one who has learned but not mastered sometimes lets go and sometimes holds on; one who has learned well crosses by his own strength without needing support. The three wisdoms are likewise. Some say: if so, the wisdom of reflection is not established, because it extends to both name and meaning, and so should in order be wisdom of hearing and of cultivation. Now, when examined, the three characteristics have no fault of distinction: the superior wisdom arising in a practitioner from hearing the noble teaching is called wisdom accomplished by hearing, the superior wisdom arising from reflecting on correct reasoning is called wisdom accomplished by reflection, and the superior wisdom arising from cultivating meditative concentration is called wisdom accomplished by cultivation. The word accomplished indicates that the three superior wisdoms are accomplished by the three causes of hearing, reflection and cultivation, just as in the world life, cattle and so on are said in order to be accomplished by eating grass. For those who wish to study diligently in cultivation, how can they purify the body and vessel so that cultivation is accomplished quickly? The verse says:

具身心遠離，無不足大欲，

Possessing seclusion of body and mind, with no discontent and no great desire,

謂已得未得，多求名所無。

that is, for what is already obtained and not yet obtained, seeking much is called what is absent.

治相違界三，無漏無貪性，

The antidote is opposed to the three realms, being untainted, and by nature without craving,

四聖種亦爾，前三唯喜足。

the four noble lineages are likewise, the first three being only contentment.

三生具後業，為治四愛生，

Three births, endowments and later karma, to counter the four kinds of craving arising,

我所我事欲，暫息永除故。

self, what belongs to self, matters and desire, because they temporarily or permanently remove them.

論曰：身器清淨略由三因。何等謂三因？一身心遠離、二喜足少欲、三住四聖種。身遠離者，離相雜住。心遠離者，離不善尋。此二易可成，由喜足少欲。言喜足者無不喜足，少欲者無大欲。所無二種差別云何？對法諸師鹹作是說：於已得妙衣服等更多求名不喜足，於未得妙衣等多希求名大欲。豈不更求亦緣未得，此二差別便應不成？是故此中應作是說：於所已得不妙不多悵望不歡名不喜足，於所未得衣服等事求妙求多名為大欲。喜足少欲能治此故，與此相違應知差別。喜足少欲通三界無漏，所治二種唯欲界所繫。喜足少欲體是無貪，所治二種欲貪為性。能生眾聖故名聖種。四聖種體亦是無貪，四中前三體唯喜足，謂於衣服飲食臥具隨所得中皆生喜足，第四聖種謂樂斷修，如何亦用無貪為體？以能棄捨有欲貪故。為顯何義立四聖種？以諸弟子捨俗生具及俗事業，為求解脫歸佛出家。法主世尊愍彼安立助道二事：一者生具、二者事業。前三即是助道生具，最後即是助道事業。汝等若能依前生具作後事業，解脫非久。何故安立如是二事？為欲對治四種愛生，故契經言：苾芻諦聽！愛因衣服應生時生、應住時住、應執時執。如是愛因飲食臥具及有無有，皆如是說。為治此四說四聖種。即依此義更異門說，謂佛為欲暫息永除我所我事欲，故說四聖種。我所事者謂衣服等，我事者謂自身，緣彼貪名為欲。為暫止息前三貪故說前三聖種，為永滅除四種貪故說第四聖種。如是已說修所依器。由何門故能正入修？頌曰：

The treatise says: The purification of the body as a vessel comes briefly from three causes. What are the three? First, bodily and mental seclusion; second, contentment and few desires; and third, dwelling in the four noble lineages. Bodily seclusion means living apart from mixed company. Mental seclusion means being free of unwholesome thoughts. These two are easily accomplished through contentment and few desires. Contentment means being without discontent; few desires means being without great desire. How do the two that are absent differ? The Abhidharma masters all say: seeking more of fine clothing and the like that one has already obtained is called discontent; seeking much of fine clothing and the like that one has not yet obtained is called great desire. But does seeking more not also take what is not yet obtained as its object, so that the difference between the two would not hold? Therefore it should be said here: being dissatisfied and displeased with what one has already obtained as not fine or not enough is called discontent; seeking fineness and abundance in clothing and the like not yet obtained is called great desire. Contentment and few desires can counteract these; what is contrary to this should be understood as the distinction. Contentment and few desires are undefiled in the three realms, while the two that they counteract belong only to the desire realm. The substance of contentment and few desires is non-greed, and the two counteracted are by nature desire-greed. Because they give rise to the many noble ones, they are called noble lineages. The substance of the four noble lineages is also non-greed; of the four, the first three are substantively only contentment, namely contentment in whatever clothing, food and drink, and bedding one obtains; the fourth noble lineage is delight in abandoning and cultivating. How can it too have non-greed as its substance? Because it can cast away what has desire-greed. To show what meaning are the four noble lineages established? Because the disciples, abandoning the necessities and affairs of lay life, take refuge in the Buddha and leave home seeking liberation, the Dharma Lord, the World-Honored One, out of compassion for them, established two supports of the path: first, the necessities of life; and second, the work. The first three are the necessities that support the path, and the last is the work that supports the path. If you can, relying on the former necessities, do the latter work, liberation is not far off. Why were these two established? In order to counteract the four kinds of arising of craving, the sutra says: Bhikshus, listen carefully! Craving for clothing arises when it should arise, abides when it should abide, and clings when it should cling. Craving for food and drink, bedding, and existence and non-existence is spoken of likewise. To counteract these four, the four noble lineages are taught. According to this very meaning, it is said in another way: the Buddha taught the four noble lineages in order to temporarily quiet and permanently eliminate desire for what is mine and for my affairs. What is mine means clothing and the like; my affairs means one's own body; greed for them is called desire. To temporarily stop the first three kinds of greed, the first three noble lineages are taught; to permanently extinguish all four kinds of greed, the fourth noble lineage is taught. The vessel on which cultivation depends has thus been explained. Through what doors can one properly enter cultivation? The verse says:

入修要二門，不淨觀息念，

There are two main doors to enter cultivation: contemplation of impurity and mindfulness of breathing;

貪尋增上者，如次第應修。

one in whom greed or discursive thought predominates should cultivate each in order.

論曰：正入修門要者有二，一不淨觀、二持息念。誰於何門能正入修？如次應知。貪尋增者，謂貪猛盛數現在前，如是有情名貪行者，彼觀不淨能正入修。尋多亂心名尋行者，彼依息念能正入修。有餘師言：此持息念非多緣故能止亂尋，不淨多緣顯形差別引多尋故治彼無能。有餘復言：此持息念內門轉故能止亂尋，不淨多於外門轉故，猶如眼識治彼無能。此中先應辯不淨觀。如是觀相云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: There are two main doors by which to properly enter cultivation: first, contemplation of impurity; second, mindfulness of breathing. Who can properly enter cultivation through which door? It should be understood in order. Those in whom greed increases, meaning greed is fierce and frequently arises, such beings are called greed-types, and by contemplating impurity they can properly enter cultivation. Those whose minds are confused by much discursive thought are called thought-types, and by relying on mindfulness of breathing they can properly enter cultivation. Other masters say: mindfulness of breathing, not having many objects, can stop disturbing thought, whereas contemplation of impurity, having many objects that show differences of shape and color, gives rise to much thought and so cannot counteract it. Others further say: mindfulness of breathing turns on an inner door and so can stop disturbing thought, whereas impurity mostly turns on outer doors, like eye-consciousness, and so cannot counteract it. Here one should first discuss contemplation of impurity. What are the characteristics of this contemplation? The verse says:

為通治四貪，且辯觀骨鎖，

To counteract the four kinds of greed in general, first the skeleton is contemplated,

廣至海復略，名初習業位，

broadened up to the ocean and then abbreviated again: this is called the stage of a beginner's practice;

除足至頭半，名為已熟修，

removing from the feet up to half the head is called well-practiced cultivation;

繫心在眉間，名超作意位。

fixing the mind between the eyebrows is called the stage of surpassing attention.

論曰：修不淨觀正為治貪，然貪差別略有四種：一顯色貪、二形色貪、三妙觸貪、四供奉貪。緣青瘀等修不淨觀治第一貪，緣被食等修不淨觀治第二貪，緣蟲蛆等修不淨觀治第三貪，緣屍不動修不淨觀治第四貪。若緣骨鎖修不淨觀，通能對治如是四貪，以骨鎖中無四貪境，故應且辯修骨鎖觀。此唯勝解作意攝故、少分緣故，不斷煩惱，唯能制伏令不現行。然瑜伽師修骨鎖觀總有三位：一初習業、二已熟修、三超作意。謂觀行者欲修如是不淨觀時，應先繫心於自身分，或於足指或額或餘，隨所樂處心得住已，依勝解力於自身分假想思惟，皮肉爛墮漸令骨淨，乃至具觀全身骨鎖。見一具已復觀第二，如是漸次廣至一房一寺一園一村一國，乃至遍地以海為邊，於其中間骨鎖充滿，為令勝解得增長故。於所廣事漸略而觀，乃至唯觀一具骨鎖，齊此漸略不淨觀成，名瑜伽師初習業位。為令略觀勝解力增，於一具中先除足骨思惟餘骨繫心而住，漸次乃至除頭半骨思惟半骨繫心而住，齊此轉略不淨觀成，名瑜伽師已熟修位。為令略觀勝解自在，除半頭骨繫心眉間，專注一緣湛然而住，齊此極略不淨觀成，名瑜伽師超作意位。有不淨觀由所緣小非自在小，應作四句，此由作意已熟未熟未熟已熟，及由所緣自身至海有差別故。此不淨觀何性？幾地？緣何境？何處生？何行相？緣何世？為有漏、為無漏？為離染得、為加行得？頌曰：

The treatise says: Cultivation of contemplation of impurity is chiefly to counteract greed; yet greed is briefly of four kinds: first, greed for color; second, greed for shape; third, greed for pleasant touch; and fourth, greed for service. Cultivating contemplation of impurity on a bluish, bruised corpse and the like counteracts the first greed; on a corpse being eaten and the like, the second; on worms and maggots and the like, the third; and on an unmoving corpse, the fourth. If one cultivates contemplation of impurity on the skeleton, one can counteract all four kinds of greed, since in a skeleton there are no objects of the four kinds of greed; so cultivation of contemplation of the skeleton should be discussed first. This is included only in attention of resolve, and since it takes only a part as object, it does not eliminate the afflictions but can only subdue them so that they do not manifest. The yogi's cultivation of contemplation of the skeleton has three stages in all: first, the beginner's practice; second, well-practiced cultivation; and third, surpassing attention. That is, when a practitioner wishes to cultivate this contemplation of impurity, he should first fix his mind on a part of his own body, either the big toe, the forehead, or elsewhere; when the mind abides at the place that he likes, relying on the power of resolve he imagines and reflects on that part of his own body, the skin and flesh rotting and falling away, gradually leaving the bones clean, until he contemplates the skeleton of the entire body. Having seen one skeleton he contemplates a second, and in this way gradually extends it to a room, a monastery, a garden, a village, a country, until the entire earth bounded by the sea, with skeletons filling the space between, in order to make resolve increase. He then gradually abbreviates the extended object and contemplates it, until he contemplates only one skeleton; up to here, when the abbreviated contemplation of impurity is accomplished, it is called the stage of the yogi's beginner's practice. In order to increase the power of resolve in abbreviated contemplation, in a single skeleton he first removes the bones of the feet and reflects on the other bones, fixing the mind there, and gradually, up to removing half the bones of the head, reflects on the half bones and fixes the mind; up to here, when the further abbreviated contemplation is accomplished, it is called the stage of the yogi's well-practiced cultivation. In order to make the abbreviated contemplation of resolve masterful, he removes half the skull bones and fixes the mind between the eyebrows, abiding clear and still with exclusive focus on one object; up to here, when the extremely abbreviated contemplation of impurity is accomplished, it is called the stage of the yogi's surpassing attention. There is contemplation of impurity whose object is small but is not small in mastery; a four-way alternative should be made, since this differs according to whether attention is well practiced or not, and according to whether the object ranges from one's own body to the ocean. What is the nature of this contemplation of impurity? Which grounds? What object does it take? Where is it born? What aspect? Which time does it take as object? Is it defiled or undefiled? Is it obtained by becoming free of defilement or by effort? The verse says:

無貪性十地，緣欲色人生，

Its nature is non-greed, of ten grounds; it takes the desire realm and form, and is born among humans;

不淨自世緣，有漏通二得。

it takes impurity as aspect, its own time as object; it is defiled and is obtained in both ways.

論曰：如先所問今次第答。謂此觀以無貪為性通依十地，謂四靜慮及四近分中間欲界，唯緣欲界所見色境。所見者何？謂顯形色。緣義為境，由此已成。唯人趣生，三洲除北，尚非餘趣況餘界生。既立不淨名，唯不淨行相。隨在何世緣自世境，若不生法通緣三世。既唯勝解作意相應，此觀理應唯是有漏。通離染得及加行得，由有曾得未曾得故。說不淨觀相差別已，次應辯持息念。此差別相云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: As asked before, the answers now follow in order. This contemplation has non-greed as its nature and relies on ten grounds, namely the four meditations, the four access stages, the intermediate meditation, and the desire realm; it takes as object only the form seen in the desire realm. What is seen? It is visible form of color and shape. It takes meaning as its object, as already established. It is born only in the human destiny, in three continents excepting the north; it is not even found in other destinies, let alone in other realms. Since it is named impurity, its aspect is only impurity. In whatever time it is, it takes objects of its own time; as for unarisen dharmas it extends to taking all three times. Since it is associated only with attention of resolve, this contemplation should be defiled. It is obtained both through becoming free of defilement and through effort, because there is what was previously obtained and what was not previously obtained. Having explained the differences in the characteristics of the contemplation of impurity, next one should discuss mindfulness of breathing. What are the characteristics of this? The verse says:

息念慧五地，緣風依欲身，

Mindfulness of breathing is wisdom of five grounds, takes wind as object, and depends on the desire-realm body;

二得實外無，有六謂數等。

it is obtained in two ways; real, not external; it has six aspects, namely counting and the rest.

論曰：言息念者，即契經中所說阿那阿波那念。言阿那者，謂持息入，是引外風令入身義。阿波那者，謂持息出，是引內風令出身義。慧由念力觀此為境，故名阿那阿波那念。以慧為性而說念者，念力持故，於境分明所作事成，如念住故。通於五地，謂初二三靜慮近分中間欲界，此念唯與捨相應故。謂苦樂受能順引尋，此念治尋故不俱起。喜樂二受能違專注，此念於境專注故成。由此相違，故不俱起。有說：根本下三靜慮中亦有捨受。彼說依八地，上定現前息無有故。此定緣風，依欲身起。唯人天趣，除北俱盧。通離染得及加行得，唯與真實作意相應。正法有情方能修習，外道無有，無說者故、自不能覺微細法故。此相圓滿由具六因：一數、二隨、三止、四觀、五轉、六淨。數謂繫心緣入出息不作加行，放捨身心唯念憶持入出息數，從一至十不減不增，恐心於現極聚散故。然於此中容有三失：一數減失，於二謂一。二數增失，於一謂二。三雜亂失，於入謂出、於出謂入。若離如是三種過失，名為正數。若十中間心散亂者，復應從一次第數之，終而復始乃至得定。隨謂繫心緣入出息，不作加行隨息而行，念息入出時各遠至何所。謂念息入，為行遍身、為行一分？隨彼息入，行至喉心臍髖髀脛乃至足指，念恆隨逐。若念息出，離身為至一磔一尋，隨所至方念恆隨逐。有餘師說：息出極遠，乃至風輪或吠嵐婆。此不應理，此念真實作意俱故。止謂繫念唯在鼻端，或在眉間乃至足指，隨所樂處安止其心。觀息住身如珠中縷，為冷為煖、為損為益。觀謂觀察此息風已，兼觀息俱大種造色及依色住心及心所，具觀五蘊以為境界。轉謂移轉，緣息風覺安置後後勝善根中乃至世間第一法位。淨謂昇進入見道等。有餘師說：念住為初，金剛喻定為後名轉，盡智等方名淨，為攝六相故說頌言：

The treatise says: Mindfulness of breathing is the anapanasmriti spoken of in the sutras. Ana means holding the breath in, the meaning of drawing external wind into the body. Apana means holding the breath out, the meaning of expelling internal wind from the body. Wisdom, through the power of mindfulness, contemplates this as its object, so it is called anapanasmriti. Although it is said to be mindfulness while having wisdom as its nature, it is because the power of mindfulness sustains it, so that the object is clear and the task is accomplished, as with the foundations of mindfulness. It extends over five grounds, namely the first three meditations, the access stages, the intermediate stage, and the desire realm; this mindfulness is associated only with equanimity. For the feelings of suffering and pleasure can lead to thought, and this mindfulness counteracts thought, so they do not arise together. The two feelings of joy and pleasure can oppose exclusive focus, whereas this mindfulness succeeds through exclusive focus on its object; because they are contrary, they do not arise together. Some say: the feeling of equanimity also exists in the lower three of the root meditations. They say it relies on eight grounds, since in higher concentrations when they are present there is no breath. This concentration takes wind as object and arises depending on the desire-realm body, only in the human and divine destinies, excepting the north Kuru. It is obtained both through becoming free of defilement and through effort, and is associated only with real attention. Only sentient beings of the correct Dharma can practice it; it does not exist among non-Buddhists, because they do not teach it and cannot themselves perceive subtle dharmas. Its characteristics are complete by having six causes: first, counting; second, following; third, stopping; fourth, contemplating; fifth, transforming; and sixth, purifying. Counting means fixing the mind on the in-breath and out-breath without making effort, relaxing the body and mind, and only recollecting and holding the count of the in- and out-breaths, from one to ten without decreasing or increasing, for fear that the mind may scatter or gather too much in the present. In this there may be three faults: first, the fault of undercounting, taking two as one; second, the fault of overcounting, taking one as two; and third, the fault of confusion, taking an in-breath as an out-breath and an out-breath as an in-breath. If free of these three faults it is called correct counting. If the mind is distracted in the middle of the ten, one should count again from one in order, ending and starting again until concentration is attained. Following means fixing the mind on the in- and out-breath, following the breath without making effort, remembering how far the breath reaches when entering and leaving. That is, recollecting the breath entering, does it travel through the whole body or one part? Following the entering breath, it travels to the throat, heart, navel, hips, thighs, shins, and even the toes, with mindfulness constantly following. If recollecting the breath leaving, as it leaves the body, how far does it reach, a span or a fathom? In whatever direction it reaches, mindfulness constantly follows. Some other masters say: the out-breath goes extremely far, up to the wind circle or the vairambha (a fierce wind). This is unreasonable, since this mindfulness arises together with real attention. Stopping means fixing mindfulness only at the tip of the nose, or between the eyebrows, down to the toes, and settling the mind wherever one likes. One observes the breath dwelling in the body like a thread in a pearl, whether it is cool or warm, harmful or beneficial. Contemplating means that having observed this breath-wind, one further observes the great elements and derived form that accompany the breath, and the mind and mental factors that rest on the form, contemplating all five aggregates as the object. Transforming means shifting: taking the awareness of the breath-wind and placing it in successively superior wholesome roots, up to the stage of the highest worldly dharma. Purifying means advancing and entering the path of seeing and so on. Other masters say: the foundations of mindfulness are the first and the vajra-like concentration is the last, called transforming, and only the knowledge of exhaustion and the like is called purifying. To sum up the six characteristics, a verse says:

持息念應知，有六種異相，

Mindfulness of breathing should be known to have six different aspects,

謂數隨止觀、轉淨相差別。

namely counting, following, stopping, contemplating, and the differences of transforming and purifying.

息相差別云何應知？頌曰：

How should the differences of the breath be known? The verse says: