Sarvastivada Abhidharmakosa-sastra, Fascicle 25

尊者世親造

Composed by the Venerable Vasubandhu

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by the Tripitaka Master Xuanzang by imperial command

分別智品第七之一

Chapter Seven, Part One: Analysis of Knowledge

前品初說諸忍諸智，於後復說正見正智。為有忍非智耶？為有智非見耶？頌曰：

In the previous chapter the various patiences and knowledges were first discussed, and afterward right view and right knowledge were discussed. Is there patience that is not knowledge? Is there knowledge that is not view? The verse says:

聖慧忍非智，盡無生非見，

Noble wisdom: patience is not knowledge; exhaustion and non-arising are not view;

餘二有漏慧，皆智六見性。

the other two are defiled wisdom; all are knowledge, and six are of the nature of view.

論曰：慧有二種，有漏、無漏，唯無漏慧立以聖名。此聖慧中八忍非智性，自所斷疑未已斷故。可見性攝，推度性故。盡與無生二智非見性，已息求心不推度故。所餘皆通智見二性，已斷自疑、推度性故。諸有漏慧皆智性攝，於中唯六亦是見性，謂五染汙見、世正見為六。如是所說聖有漏慧，皆擇法故並慧性攝。智有幾種？相別云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Wisdom is of two kinds, defiled and undefiled, and only undefiled wisdom is called noble. Among this noble wisdom, the eight patiences are not of the nature of knowledge, because the doubts to be cut off by them have not yet been cut off. They are included in the nature of view, because they have the nature of inquiry. The knowledges of exhaustion and non-arising are not of the nature of view, because the search of the mind has already ceased and they no longer inquire. The rest all have both natures, knowledge and view, since their own doubts have been cut off and they have the nature of inquiry. All defiled wisdoms are included in the nature of knowledge, and of these only six are also of the nature of view, namely the five defiled views and worldly right view, making six. These noble and defiled wisdoms are all of the nature of wisdom because they discriminate dharmas. How many kinds of knowledge are there? How do their characteristics differ? The verse says:

智十總有二，有漏無漏別，

There are ten knowledges, in general two, divided as defiled and undefiled;

有漏稱世俗，無漏名法類。

the defiled is called worldly (conventional); the undefiled is called Dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge.

世俗遍為境，法智及類智，

Worldly knowledge takes everything as object; Dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge

如次欲上界，苦等諦為境。

respectively take the truths of suffering and so on in the desire realm and in the upper realms as object.

論曰：智有十種攝一切智：一世俗智、二法智、三類智、四苦智、五集智、六滅智、七道智、八他心智、九盡智、十無生智。如是十智總唯二種，有漏、無漏性差別故。如是二智相別有三，謂世俗智、法智、類智。前有漏智總名世俗，多取瓶等世俗境故。後無漏智分法、類別。三中世俗遍，以一切有為無為為所緣境。法類二種如其次第，以欲上界四諦為境。即於如是二種智中，頌曰：

The treatise says: Knowledge is of ten kinds and includes all knowledge: first, worldly knowledge; second, Dharma-knowledge; third, subsequent knowledge; fourth, knowledge of suffering; fifth, knowledge of origin; sixth, knowledge of cessation; seventh, knowledge of the path; eighth, knowledge of others' minds; ninth, knowledge of exhaustion; tenth, knowledge of non-arising. These ten knowledges are in general only two kinds, because of the difference in the nature of defiled and undefiled. The characteristics of these two are three, namely worldly knowledge, Dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge. The first, defiled knowledge, is called worldly knowledge in general, because it mostly takes conventional objects such as vases. The latter, undefiled knowledge, is divided into Dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge. Among the three, worldly knowledge is universal, taking all conditioned and unconditioned things as its objects. Dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge, in order, take the four truths of the desire realm and of the upper realms as objects. Concerning these two kinds of knowledge, the verse says:

法類由境別，立苦等四名，

Dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge, by difference of object, are given the four names of suffering and the rest;

皆通盡無生，初唯苦集類。

all extend to exhaustion and non-arising; at the first, subsequent knowledge only of suffering and origin.

論曰：法智、類智由境差別分為苦、集、滅、道四智。如是六智若無學攝，非見性者名盡、無生。此二初生唯苦、集類，以緣苦、集六種行相觀有頂蘊為境界故。金剛喻定境同此耶？緣苦、集因，緣滅、道異。於前所說九種智中，頌曰：

The treatise says: Dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge, by difference of object, are divided into four knowledges: of suffering, origin, cessation and path. If these six knowledges are included in the stage of no-more-learning and are not of the nature of view, they are called exhaustion and non-arising. The first arising of these two is only the subsequent knowledge of suffering and origin, because they take the six aspects of suffering and origin and contemplate the aggregates of the peak of existence as their object. Is the object of the vajra-like concentration the same as this? It takes suffering and origin as its cause (as in this), but differs in taking cessation and the path. Among the nine knowledges already mentioned, the verse says:

法類道世俗，有成他心智，

Dharma-knowledge, subsequent knowledge, the path and worldly knowledge accomplish knowledge of others' minds;

於勝地根位，去來世不知，

in the higher ground, faculty and stage, it does not know; past and future it does not know;

法類不相知，聲聞麟喻佛，

Dharma and subsequent knowledge do not know each other; Sravaka, rhinoceros-horn and Buddha

如次知見道，二三念一切。

know in order the path of seeing, two, three, and all moments of thought.

論曰：有法類道及世俗智成他心智，餘則不然。此智於境有決定相，謂不知勝及去來心。勝心有三，謂地、根、位。地謂下地智不知上地心。根謂信解時解脫根智不知見至不時解脫心。位謂不還聲聞應果、獨覺大覺。前前位智不知後後勝位者心，此智不知去來心者唯以現在他相續中能緣心等為境界故。又法類品不互相知，謂法智攝諸他心智不知類品，類智所攝諸他心智不知法品，由法類智以欲上界全分對治為所緣故。此他心智見道中無，總觀諦理極速轉故，然皆容作此智所緣。若諸有情將入見道，聲聞獨覺預修加行，為欲知彼見道位心。彼諸有情入見道位，聲聞法分加行若滿，知彼見道初二念心。若為更知類分心故，別修加行至加行滿，彼已度至第十六心，雖知此心非知見道。麟喻法分加行若滿，知彼見道初二念心。若為更知類分心故，別修加行至加行滿，知彼第八集類智心。以此但由下加行故。有說：知初二及第十五心，世尊欲知不由加行，於彼見道一切能知。盡、無生智二相何別？頌曰：

The treatise says: Those who have Dharma-knowledge, subsequent knowledge, knowledge of the path and worldly knowledge accomplish knowledge of others' minds; the others do not. This knowledge has determinate features regarding its object: it does not know the superior, nor minds of the past and future. The superior mind is of three kinds, namely ground, faculty and stage. Ground means that knowledge of a lower ground does not know the mind of a higher ground. Faculty means that, as to the faculty of liberation at the time of faith and understanding, knowledge does not know the minds of those who have attained by view and are liberated not at a particular time. Stage means that, among the non-returner, the Sravaka arhat, the Pratyekabuddha and the great awakened one, the knowledge of each earlier stage does not know the mind of a later, superior stage. This knowledge does not know past and future minds because it takes only the minds that are active in the present continuum of another as its object. Also, Dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge do not know each other; that is, the knowledges of others' minds included in Dharma-knowledge do not know the class of subsequent knowledge, and those included in subsequent knowledge do not know the Dharma class, because Dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge take as objects the full antidotes of the desire realm and of the upper realms respectively. This knowledge of others' minds does not exist in the path of seeing, since one contemplates the truths comprehensively and moves extremely quickly; however, all of them can be objects of this knowledge. If beings are about to enter the path of seeing, Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas first cultivate preparatory practice, wishing to know the minds of those in the stage of the path of seeing. When those beings enter the path of seeing, if a Sravaka has completed the preparatory practice for the Dharma portion, he knows the first two moments of their mind in the path of seeing. If, in order to know further the mind of the subsequent portion, he cultivates separate preparatory practice until it is complete, they have already passed to the sixteenth mind; though he knows this mind, he does not know the path of seeing. If a rhinoceros-horn Pratyekabuddha has completed the preparatory practice for the Dharma portion, he knows the first two moments of their mind in the path of seeing. If, in order to know further the mind of the subsequent portion, he cultivates separate preparatory practice until it is complete, he knows the eighth mind, the subsequent knowledge of origin. This is only because of the lower preparatory practice. Some say: he knows the first two moments and the fifteenth mind. The Buddha, when he wishes to know, does not depend on preparatory practice and can know all of that path of seeing. How do the two knowledges of exhaustion and non-arising differ in their characteristics? The verse says:

智於四聖諦，知我已知等，

Knowledge of the four noble truths: "I have known" and so on,

不應更知等，如次盡無生。

"it need not be known again" and so on, in order exhaustion and non-arising.

論曰：如本論說：云何盡智？謂無學位若正自知：我已知苦、我已斷集、我已證滅、我已修道，由此所有智、見、明、覺、解、慧、光、觀，是名盡智。云何無生智？謂正自知：我已知苦，不應更知，廣說乃至我已修道，不應更修，由此所有廣說乃至是名無生智。如何無漏智可作如是知？迦濕彌羅諸論師說：從二智出後得智中作如是知，故無有失。由此後得二智別故，表前觀中二智差別。有說：無漏智亦作如是知，然說見言乘言便故，或於諦理現照轉故。由此本論亦作是言。且諸智亦是見。如是十智相攝云何？謂世俗智攝一全一少分，法類智各攝一全七少分，苦集滅智各攝一全四少分，道智攝一全五少分，他心智攝一全四少分，盡無生智各攝一全六少分。何緣二智建立為十？頌曰：

The treatise says: As the original treatise says: What is the knowledge of exhaustion? In the stage of no-more-learning, when one rightly knows for oneself: I have known suffering, I have abandoned the origin, I have realized cessation, I have cultivated the path; whatever knowledge, view, clarity, awakening, understanding, wisdom, light and contemplation there is thereby, this is called the knowledge of exhaustion. What is the knowledge of non-arising? It is rightly knowing for oneself: I have known suffering and need not know it again, and so on at length up to: I have cultivated the path and need not cultivate it again; whatever there is thereby, and so on at length, is called the knowledge of non-arising. How can undefiled knowledge make such a judgment? The Kashmiri masters say: It makes such a judgment in the knowledge attained subsequent to the two knowledges, and so there is no fault. By this difference of the two subsequently attained knowledges, the difference of the two knowledges in the earlier contemplation is shown. Others say: Undefiled knowledge also makes such a judgment, but "view" is mentioned because of the vehicle or occasion of expression, or because it illuminates the truths directly and in operation. For this reason the original treatise also says so. Moreover, the various knowledges are also view. How, then, do the ten knowledges include one another? Worldly knowledge includes one in full and one in part; Dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge each include one in full and seven in part; the knowledges of suffering, origin and cessation each include one in full and four in part; the knowledge of the path includes one in full and five in part; the knowledge of others' minds includes one in full and four in part; the knowledges of exhaustion and non-arising each include one in full and six in part. Why are the two knowledges established as ten? The verse says:

由自性對治，行相行相境，

By nature, antidote, aspect, aspect and object,

加行辦因圓，故建立十智。

preparatory practice, work accomplished and cause complete, the ten knowledges are established.

論曰：由七緣故立二為十：一自性故立世俗智，非勝義智為自性故。二對治故立法類智，全能對治欲上界故。三行相故立苦集智，此二智境體無別故。四行相境故立滅道智，此二行相境俱有別故。五加行故立他心智，非此不知他心所法，本修加行為知他心，雖成滿時亦知心所，而約加行故立他心智名。六事辦故建立盡智，事辦身中最初生故。七因圓故立無生智，一切聖道為因生故。如上所言法智類智，全能對治欲上界法，為有少分治上欲耶？頌曰：

The treatise says: By seven conditions the two are established as ten: first, by nature, worldly knowledge is established, because its nature is not ultimate knowledge. Second, by antidote, Dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge are established, because they are the full antidote of the desire realm and the upper realms. Third, by aspect, the knowledges of suffering and origin are established, because the objects of these two knowledges do not differ in substance. Fourth, by aspect and object, the knowledges of cessation and the path are established, because their aspects and objects both differ. Fifth, by preparatory practice, the knowledge of others' minds is established; without it one does not know the mental factors of others, one cultivates the original preparatory practice in order to know others' minds, and although when it is completed one also knows mental factors, the name "knowledge of others' minds" is established by reference to the preparatory practice. Sixth, because the task is accomplished, the knowledge of exhaustion is established, because it first arises in the body whose task is done. Seventh, because the cause is complete, the knowledge of non-arising is established, because it arises with all noble paths as its cause. Of the Dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge described above, which are full antidotes of the dharmas of the desire realm and the upper realms, is there a partial antidote to the upper? The verse says:

緣滅道法智，於修道位中，

The Dharma-knowledge that takes cessation and the path as object, in the path of cultivation,

兼治上修斷，類無能治欲。

also counteracts what is to be abandoned by cultivation in the upper; subsequent knowledge cannot counteract the desire realm.

論曰：修道所攝滅道法智，兼能對治上界修斷，欲之滅道勝上界故，已除自怨能兼他故。由此類智無能治欲。於此十智中誰有何行相？頌曰：

The treatise says: The Dharma-knowledge of cessation and the path included in the path of cultivation also can counteract what is to be abandoned by cultivation in the upper realms, because the cessation and path of the desire realm are superior to those of the upper realms, and having removed its own enemies it can also take on those of others. For this reason subsequent knowledge cannot counteract the desire realm. Among these ten knowledges, which has what aspects? The verse says:

法智及類智，行相俱十六，

Dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge each have sixteen aspects;

世俗此及餘，四諦智各四。

worldly knowledge has these and others; the knowledges of the four truths have four each.

他心智無漏，唯四謂緣道，

Undefiled knowledge of others' minds has only four, those that take the path;

有漏自相緣，俱但緣一事。

defiled knowledge takes its own characteristics as object; both take only one thing.

盡無生十四，謂離空非我。

Exhaustion and non-arising have fourteen, lacking emptiness and non-self.

論曰：法智、類智一一具有非常、苦等十六行相，十六行相後當廣釋。世智有此及更有餘，能緣一切法自共相等故。苦等四智一一各有緣自諦境四種行相。他心智中，若無漏者唯有緣道四種行相，由此即是道智攝故；若有漏者取自所緣心心所法自相境故。如境自相行相亦爾，故此非前十六所攝。如是二種於一切時一念但緣一事為境，謂緣心時不緣心所，緣受等時不緣想等。若爾，何故薄伽梵說：如實了知有貪心等。非俱時取貪等及心，如不俱時取衣及垢。有貪心者，二義有貪：一貪相應、二貪所繫。貪相應心具由二義，餘有漏心唯貪所繫。有說：經言有貪心者，唯說第一貪相應心。離貪心者，謂治貪心。若貪不相應名離貪心者，餘惑相應者應得離貪名。若爾，有心非貪對治不染汙性，應許此心非有貪心離貪心等。是故應許餘師所說，為貪所繫名有貪心，乃至有痴離痴亦爾。毘婆沙師作如是說：聚心者謂善心，此於所緣不馳散故。散心者謂染心，此與散動相應起故。西方諸師作如是說：眠相應者名為聚心，餘染汙心說名為散。此不應理，諸染汙心若與眠相應，應通聚散故。又應違害本論所言：如實知聚心，具足有四智，謂法智、類智、世俗智、道智。沈心者謂染心，此與懈怠相應起故。策心者謂善心，此與正勤相應起故。小心者謂染心，少淨品者所好習故。大心者謂善心，多淨品者所好習故。或由根價眷屬隨轉力用少多故名小大，染心根少，極二相應故；善心根多，恆三相應故。染心價少，非功用成故；善心價多，大資糧成故。染心眷屬少，無未來修故；善心眷屬多，有未來修故。染心隨轉少，唯三蘊故；善心隨轉多，通四蘊故。染心力用少，所斷善根必還續故；善心力用多，忍必永斷諸隨眠故。由此染善得小大名。掉心者謂染心，掉舉相應故。不掉心者謂善心，能治彼故。不靜靜心應知亦爾。

The treatise says: Dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge each have the sixteen aspects of impermanence, suffering and so on, which will be explained at length later. Worldly knowledge has these and also others, since it can take the own-characteristics and common characteristics of all dharmas as object. Each of the four knowledges of suffering and so on has four kinds of aspect that take the object of its own truth. In the knowledge of others' minds, if it is undefiled, it has only the four aspects that take the path, since it is included in the knowledge of the path; if it is defiled, it takes as object the own-characteristics of the minds and mental factors it takes as its object. Its aspect is like the own-characteristic of the object, and so it is not included in the sixteen earlier ones. These two kinds, at all times, in a single moment take only one thing as object: when taking mind they do not take mental factors, and when taking sensation and so on they do not take perception and so on. If so, why did the Bhagavat say: One knows as it is a mind with greed, and so on? It does not mean that greed and so on and mind are taken at the same time, just as one does not take a garment and its dirt at the same time. As for "a mind with greed," "having greed" has two meanings: first, associated with greed; second, bound by greed. A mind associated with greed has both meanings, and other defiled minds are only bound by greed. Some say: The sutra, in speaking of a mind with greed, speaks only of the first, a mind associated with greed. A mind without greed means a mind that counteracts greed. If a mind not associated with greed were called a mind without greed, a mind associated with other defilements would receive the name "without greed." If so, a mind that is not an antidote to greed and is not defiled would have to be admitted as neither a mind with greed nor a mind without greed. Therefore one should admit what the other masters say: that being bound by greed is called having greed, and so too up to having delusion and being free of delusion. The Vaibhasika masters say: A collected mind means a wholesome mind, since it is not scattered on its object. A scattered mind means a defiled mind, since it arises together with scattering and agitation. The Western masters say: A mind associated with torpor is called a collected mind, and other defiled minds are called scattered. This is not reasonable, since if defiled minds are associated with torpor they would be both collected and scattered. It would also contradict the original treatise, which says: One who knows a collected mind as it is has four knowledges, namely Dharma-knowledge, subsequent knowledge, worldly knowledge and knowledge of the path. A sunken mind means a defiled mind, since it arises together with laziness. A uplifted mind means a wholesome mind, since it arises together with right effort. A small mind means a defiled mind, because it is fond of and habituated to a small number of pure factors. A great mind means a wholesome mind, because it is fond of and habituated to many pure factors. Or it is called small or great because of the lesser or greater function of its roots, value and retinue. A defiled mind has few roots, since it is associated with at most two; a wholesome mind has many roots, since it is always associated with three. A defiled mind has little value, since it is not accomplished by effort; a wholesome mind has great value, since it is accomplished by great provisions. A defiled mind has few attendants, since there is no cultivation in the future; a wholesome mind has many attendants, since there is cultivation in the future. A defiled mind accompanies few, only three aggregates; a wholesome mind accompanies many, extending to four aggregates. A defiled mind has little power, since wholesome roots that are cut off will certainly continue again; a wholesome mind has great power, since patience certainly cuts off the latent tendencies forever. Thus defiled and wholesome minds receive the names small and great. An agitated mind means a defiled mind, since it is associated with restlessness. An unagitated mind means a wholesome mind, since it can counteract that. The unstill and still minds should be understood to be the same.

不定心者謂染心，散動相應故；定心者謂善心，能治彼故。不修心者謂染心，得修習修俱不攝故；修心者謂善心，容有二修故。不解脫心者謂染心，自性相續不解脫故；解脫心者謂善心，自性相續容解脫故。如是所釋不順契經，亦不能辯諸句別義。如何此釋不順契經？經言：此心云何內聚？謂心若與惛眠俱行，或內相應有止無觀。云何外散？謂心遊涉五妙欲境隨散隨流，或內相應有觀無止。豈不前說染心眠俱便有一心通聚散過？雖說，非理，不許眠俱諸染汙心是散心故。豈不又說本論相違？寧違論文，勿違經說。如何不辯諸句別義？謂依此釋不能辯了散等聚等八異相故。依我所釋非不能辯此契經中八句別義，謂雖散等同是染心，而為顯其過失差別，及雖聚等同是善心，而為顯其功德差別，故依八義別立八名。既不能通所違經說，所辯句義理亦不成。又若沈心即掉心者，經不應說若於爾時心沈，恐沈修安定捨三覺支者名非時修。若於爾時心掉，恐掉修擇進喜名非時修。豈修覺支有散別理？此據作意欲脩名修，非現前修，故無有失。豈不我說亦不違經？雖諸染心皆名沈掉，懈怠增者經說沈心，掉舉增者經說掉心，據恆相應我說體一，隨自意語誰復能遮？然實此經意不如是。前說一切貪所繫心皆名有貪心。貪繫是何義？若貪得隨故，有學無漏心應名有貪，貪得隨故。若貪所緣故，無學有漏心應名有貪，貪所緣故。若不許彼為貪所緣，云何彼心可成有漏？若謂由為共相惑緣應名有痴，痴所緣故。然他心智不緣貪得，亦不可說緣緣心貪。寧知他心是有貪等？故非貪繫名有貪心。若爾，云何？今詳經意，貪相應故名有貪心，貪不相應名離貪等。若爾，何故餘契經言：離貪瞋痴心，不還墮三有。依離得說，故無有過。豈不於前已破此說？餘惑相應者，應得離貪名，彼亦與貪不相應故。若依此意，許亦無違。

(The treatise continues:) An unsettled mind means a defiled mind, since it is associated with scattering and agitation; a settled mind means a wholesome mind, since it can counteract that. An uncultivated mind means a defiled mind, since it is included in neither acquisition cultivation nor habituation cultivation; a cultivated mind means a wholesome mind, since it may have both cultivations. An unliberated mind means a defiled mind, since its nature and continuum are not liberated; a liberated mind means a wholesome mind, since its nature and continuum can be liberated. This explanation does not accord with the sutra, nor can it distinguish the separate meanings of the phrases. How does this explanation not accord with the sutra? The sutra says: How is the mind collected within? When the mind is accompanied by drowsiness, or is associated within with calm but without insight. How is it scattered outside? When the mind roams among the objects of the five marvelous desires and is scattered and flows along with them, or is associated within with insight but without calm. Did we not say before that a defiled mind accompanied by torpor would have the fault of being both collected and scattered in one mind? Though it was said, it is not reasonable, because it is not admitted that defiled minds accompanied by torpor are scattered minds. Does this not also contradict the original treatise? Better to contradict the treatise text than to contradict the sutra. How does it fail to distinguish the separate meanings of the phrases? That is, according to this explanation one cannot explain the eight different aspects of scattered and so on and collected and so on. According to my explanation I am not unable to explain the eight separate meanings of the phrases in this sutra: although scattered and the others are all defiled minds, they are given different names in order to show the differences of their faults, and although collected and the others are all wholesome minds, they are given different names in order to show the differences of their merits; so on the basis of the eight meanings eight names are separately established. Since it cannot reconcile the sutra it contradicts, the meaning of the phrases that it explains is also not established. Moreover, if a sunken mind were the same as an agitated mind, the sutra should not say: If at that time the mind is sunken, one should not at that time cultivate the three factors of awakening of tranquility, concentration and equanimity, for fear of cultivating sinking further, which is called cultivating at the wrong time; if at that time the mind is agitated, one should not cultivate discrimination, effort and joy, for fear of cultivating agitation, which is called cultivating at the wrong time. How can there be a distinction in cultivating the factors of awakening? This is called cultivating on the basis of intention to cultivate, not actual present cultivation, so there is no fault. Do I not also say that I do not contradict the sutra? Although all defiled minds are called sunken or agitated, the sutra calls it a sunken mind when laziness increases and an agitated mind when restlessness increases; from the point of constant association I say the substance is one, and who can stop me from speaking according to my own intention? In truth, however, the intention of this sutra is not so. As said before, all minds bound by greed are called minds with greed. What is the meaning of being bound by greed? If it is because of the acquisition of greed following along, then undefiled minds of the learner should be called having greed, because of the acquisition of greed following. If it is because of the object of greed, then defiled minds of the no-more-learner should be called having greed, because they are the object of greed. If you do not admit that they are the object of greed, how can that mind be defiled? If you say that because it is an object of a defilement with common characteristics it should be called having delusion, since it is the object of delusion; yet the knowledge of others' minds does not take the acquisition of greed, and one cannot say that it takes the greed that takes the mind as object. How can one know that another's mind has greed and so on? Therefore being bound by greed is not what is called a mind with greed. If so, what is it? Now, examining the sutra's intention, it is because of association with greed that it is called a mind with greed, and a mind not associated with greed is called without greed and so on. If so, why do other sutras say: A mind free of greed, hatred and delusion does not fall again into the three existences? It is said on the basis of detachment, so there is no fault. Have we not already refuted this earlier? A mind associated with other defilements would then be called free of greed, since it too is not associated with greed. If it is according to this meaning, it is also admitted without contradiction.

然不說為離貪心者，彼屬有瞋有痴等故。且止傍論，應述本宗。此所明他心智，為亦能取他心所緣，及亦取他心能緣行相不？俱不能取，知彼心時不觀彼所緣能緣行相故。謂但知彼有染等心，不知彼心所染色等，亦不知彼能緣行相。不爾，他心智應亦緣色等，又亦應有能自緣失。諸他心智有決定相，謂唯能取欲色界繫及非所繫他相續中現在同類心心所法一實自相為所緣境。空無相不相應，盡無生所不攝，不在見道無間道中，餘所不遮如應容有。盡無生智除空非我，各具有餘十四行相，由此二智雖勝義攝，而涉於世俗欲離空非我。謂由彼力於出觀時作如是言：我生已盡、梵行已立、所作已辦、不受後有。為有無漏越此十六更是所餘行相攝不？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) However, it is not called a mind free of greed, since it belongs to those with hatred, with delusion and so on. Let us stop this digression and set out our own doctrine. As for this knowledge of others' minds that has been explained, can it also take the object of another's mind, and can it also take the aspects of the other's mind that takes that object? Neither can be taken, because when one knows that mind, one does not contemplate the object it takes or the aspect by which it takes. That is, one knows only that the other has a defiled or other mind, and does not know the visible forms and so on by which that mind is defiled, nor the aspect by which it takes its object. If it were not so, the knowledge of others' minds would also take visible forms and so on, and would also have the fault of taking itself. The various knowledges of others' minds have a determinate character: they can take only, as object, the present mind and mental factors of the same kind, a single real own-characteristic, in the continuum of another, bound to the desire realm or form realm or not bound. Emptiness and non-self are not associated aspects (here), not included in exhaustion and non-arising, and not in the uninterrupted path or the path of seeing; as to the others, what is not excluded may be present as appropriate. The knowledges of exhaustion and non-arising each have fourteen other aspects, lacking emptiness and non-self; therefore, although these two knowledges are included in the ultimate, they involve the conventional and wish to be free of emptiness and non-self. That is, by their power on emerging from contemplation one says: My birth is exhausted, the holy life is established, what was to be done is done, and I will not receive another existence. Is there any undefiled aspect that goes beyond these sixteen and is included in another aspect? The verse says:

淨無越十六，餘說有論故。

There is no pure aspect beyond sixteen; other schools say there is, on account of the treatise.

論曰：迦濕彌羅國諸論師言：無無漏行相越此十六。外國師說：更有所餘無漏行相越於十六。云何知然？由本論故。如本論說：頗有不繫心能了別欲界繫法耶？曰：能了別，謂非常故、苦故、空故、非我故、因故、集故、生故、緣故，有是處、有是事，如理所引了別。若謂彼文不為顯示不繫心了別欲界繫法時，除前所明八行相外，別有有是處、有是事行相，但為顯示作八行相斯有是處、斯有是事。此釋不然，餘不說故。謂若彼論依此意說，應於餘處亦說此言，然彼餘文但作是說：頗有見斷心能了別欲界繫法耶？曰：能了別，謂我故、我所故、斷故、常故、無因故、無作故、損減故、尊故、勝故、上故、第一故、能清淨故、能解脫故、能出離故、惑故、疑故、猶豫故、貪故、瞋故、慢故、痴故，不如理所引了別。此等亦應說有是處等言，既無此言，故釋非理。十六行相實事有幾？何謂行相能行所行？頌曰：

The treatise says: The masters of the country of Kashmir say that there is no undefiled aspect beyond these sixteen. The masters of other countries say that there are other undefiled aspects beyond the sixteen. How is this known? From the original treatise. As the original treatise says: Is there an unbound mind that can discriminate dharmas bound to the desire realm? Answer: There is: namely, as impermanent, as suffering, as empty, as non-self, as cause, as origin, as arising, as condition; there is this possibility, there is this matter, as discriminated by correct reasoning. If you say that this passage is not meant to show that, when an unbound mind discriminates dharmas bound to the desire realm, there is a separate aspect of "there is this possibility, there is this matter" apart from the eight aspects shown above, but only shows that, in making the eight aspects, there is this possibility and this matter, this explanation is not right, because the others do not say so. That is, if that treatise spoke on this basis, this phrase should also be said in other places, but another passage of that treatise says only: Is there a mind abandoned by seeing that can discriminate dharmas bound to the desire realm? Answer: There is: namely, as self, as belonging to self, as to be abandoned, as permanent, as without cause, as without maker, as diminishing, as honored, as superior, as supreme, as first, as able to purify, as able to liberate, as able to lead out, as defilement, as doubt, as hesitation, as greed, as hatred, as pride, as delusion, as discriminated by incorrect reasoning. Here too one ought to say "there is this possibility" and so on, but since there is no such phrase, the explanation is not reasonable. How many actual things are there in the sixteen aspects? What is meant by aspect, by that which acts and that which is acted on? The verse says:

行相實十六，此體唯是慧，

In truth the aspects are sixteen; their substance is only wisdom;

能行有所緣，所行諸有法。

what acts has an object; what is acted on is all things that have it.

論曰：有餘師說：十六行相名雖十六實事唯七，謂緣苦諦名實俱四，緣餘三諦名四實一。如是說者實亦十六，謂苦聖諦有四相：一非常、二苦、三空、四非我，待緣故非常，逼迫性故苦，違我所見故空，違我見故非我。集聖諦有四相：一因、二集、三生、四緣，如種理故因，等現理故集，相續理故生，成辦理故緣，譬如泥團輪繩水等眾緣和合成辦瓶等。滅聖諦有四相：一滅、二靜、三妙、四離，諸蘊盡故滅，三火息故靜，無眾患故妙，脫眾災故離。道聖諦有四相：一道、二如、三行、四出，通行義故道，契正理故如，正趣向故行，能永超故出。又非究竟故非常，如荷重擔故苦，內離士夫故空，不自在故非我。牽引義故因，出現義故集，滋產義故生，為依義故緣。不續相續斷故滅，離三有為相故靜，勝義善故妙，極安隱故離。治邪道故道，治不如故如，趣入涅槃宮故行，棄捨一切有故出。如是古釋既非一門，故隨所樂更為別釋。生滅故非常，違聖心故苦，於此無我故空，自非我故非我。因集生緣如經所釋，謂五取蘊以欲為根、以欲為集、以欲為類、以欲為生，唯此生聲應在後說，與論為異。此四體相差別云何？由隨位別四欲有異：一執現總我起總自體欲、二執當總我起總後有欲、三執當別我起別後有欲、四執續生我起續生時欲。或執造業我起造業時欲，第一於苦是初因，故說名為因，如種子於果。第二於苦等招集，故說名為集，如芽等於果。第三於苦為別緣，故說名為緣，如田等於果，謂由田水糞等力故令果味勢熟德別生。第四於苦能近生，故說名為生，如華蘂於果。或如契經說：有二五二四愛行為四種欲。執現總我有五種異：一執我現決定有、二執我現如是有、三執我現變異有、四執我現有、五執我現無。執當總我亦有五異：一執我當決定有、二執我當如是有、三執我當變異有、四執我當有、五執我當無。

The treatise says: Other masters say: The sixteen aspects are sixteen in name but in actual things only seven, namely those that take the truth of suffering have four names and four things, while the other three truths have four names and one thing each. Those who say this also speak of sixteen real things, namely the noble truth of suffering has four aspects: first, impermanent; second, suffering; third, empty; fourth, non-self. It is impermanent because it is dependent on conditions, suffering because of its nature of oppression, empty because it is contrary to the view of what belongs to self, and non-self because it is contrary to the view of self. The noble truth of origin has four aspects: first, cause; second, origin; third, arising; fourth, condition. It is cause by the principle of the seed, origin by the principle of equal manifestation, arising by the principle of continuity, and condition by the principle of accomplishing, like the many conditions of clay lump, wheel, rope and water coming together to produce a vase and so on. The noble truth of cessation has four aspects: first, cessation; second, stillness; third, excellence; fourth, liberation (escape). It is cessation because the aggregates are exhausted, stillness because the three fires are quenched, excellence because it is without the many afflictions, and liberation because one is free of the many calamities. The noble truth of the path has four aspects: first, path; second, suchness; third, practice; fourth, going out. It is path because of the meaning of passing through, suchness because it accords with right principle, practice because it goes rightly toward the goal, and going out because it can lead out forever. Again, it is impermanent because it is not final, suffering like carrying a heavy burden, empty because it is inwardly free of a person, and non-self because it is not autonomous. It is cause in the meaning of drawing forth, origin in the meaning of coming into manifestation, arising in the meaning of nourishing and producing, and condition in the meaning of being a support. It is cessation because the continuity of non-continuing is cut off, stillness because it is free of the three marks of the conditioned, excellence because it is wholesome in the ultimate sense, and liberation because it is extremely secure. It is path because it cures wrong paths, suchness because it cures what is not so, practice because it goes into the palace of nirvana, and going out because it abandons all existence. Since such old explanations are not of a single kind, one may further give separate explanations as one likes: it is impermanent because of arising and perishing, suffering because it contradicts the noble mind, empty because there is no self in it, and non-self because it is itself not a self. Cause, origin, arising and condition are as explained in the sutra: that is, the five aggregates of clinging have desire as their root, desire as their origin, desire as their class, and desire as their arising; the word "arising" here should be explained later, differing from the treatise. How do the substances and characteristics of these four differ? By differences of stage, the four desires differ: first, grasping a general self in the present gives rise to desire for the general self-substance; second, grasping a general self in the future gives rise to desire for a general future existence; third, grasping a particular self in the future gives rise to desire for a particular future existence; fourth, grasping a self that continues to be reborn gives rise to desire at the time of rebirth. Or, grasping a self that creates karma gives rise to desire at the time of creating karma. The first is the initial cause of suffering and so is called cause, like a seed to its fruit. The second brings together suffering and so is called origin, like a sprout to its fruit. The third is a particular condition for suffering and so is called condition, like a field to its fruit, that is, by the power of the field, water, manure and so on, the flavor, strength and ripeness of the fruit are produced differently. The fourth can nearly produce suffering and so is called arising, like a flower stamen to its fruit. Or as the sutra says: the two, five, two and four cravings and practices are the four kinds of desire. Grasping a general present self has five differences: first, grasping that my self definitely exists now; second, grasping that my self exists in such a way now; third, grasping that my self exists in a changed form now; fourth, grasping that my self exists now; fifth, grasping that my self does not exist now. Grasping a general future self also has five differences: first, grasping that my self will definitely exist; second, that it will exist in such a way; third, that it will exist in a changed form; fourth, that it will exist; fifth, that it will not exist.

執當別我有四種異：一執我當別有、二執我當決定別有、三執我當如是別有、四執我當變異別有。執續生我等亦有四種異：一執我亦當有、二執我亦當決定有、三執我亦當如是有、四執我亦當變異有。流轉斷故滅，眾苦息故靜。如說苾芻諸行皆苦，唯有涅槃最為寂靜，更無上故妙，不退轉故離。如正道故道，如實轉故如，定能趣故行。如說此道能至清淨，餘見必無至清淨理，永離有故出。又為治常樂我所我見故修非常苦空非我行相，為治無因一因變因知先因見，故修因、集、生、緣行相。為治解脫是無見，故修滅行相。為治解脫是苦見，故修靜行相。為治靜慮及等至樂是妙見，故修妙行相。為治解脫是數退墮非永見，故修離行相。為治無道邪道餘道退道見，故修道、如、行、出行相。如是行相以慧為體。若爾，慧應非有行相，以慧與慧不相應故。由此應言諸心心所取境類別皆名行相，慧及諸餘心心所法有所緣故皆是能行，一切有法皆是所行。由此三門體有寬陿，慧通行相、能行、所行，餘心心所唯能所行，諸餘有法唯是所行。已辨十智行相差別，當辨性攝依他依身。頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) Grasping a particular future self has four differences: first, grasping that my self will exist separately; second, that my self will definitely exist separately; third, that my self will exist separately in such a way; fourth, that my self will exist separately in a changed form. Grasping a self that continues to be reborn and so on also has four differences: first, grasping that my self will also exist; second, that my self will also definitely exist; third, that my self will also exist in such a way; fourth, that my self will also exist in a changed form. It is cessation because the flowing on is cut off, and stillness because the many sufferings are quieted. As it is said: Bhiksus, all conditioned things are suffering; only nirvana is the most tranquil; there is nothing higher, and so it is excellent; it does not retreat, and so it is liberation. It is path because it is the right path, suchness because it proceeds as it is, practice because it surely leads onward. As it is said: This path can lead to purity, and in other views there is surely no possibility of reaching purity; and it is going out because it is forever free of existence. Furthermore, to counteract the views of permanence, bliss, self and belonging to self, one cultivates the aspects of impermanence, suffering, emptiness and non-self; to counteract the views of no cause, a single cause and a changing cause, and the view that knows a former cause, one cultivates the aspects of cause, origin, arising and condition. To counteract the view that liberation does not exist, one cultivates the aspect of cessation. To counteract the view that liberation is suffering, one cultivates the aspect of stillness. To counteract the view that the bliss of dhyana and attainments is excellent, one cultivates the aspect of excellence. To counteract the view that liberation is often fallen from and is not permanent, one cultivates the aspect of liberation. To counteract the views that there is no path, that wrong paths, other paths or paths that fall back are the path, one cultivates the aspects of path, suchness, practice and going out. These aspects have wisdom as their substance. If so, wisdom would have no aspect, since wisdom is not associated with wisdom. Therefore it should be said that the different kinds of objects taken by the various minds and mental factors are all called aspects; wisdom and the other minds and mental factors, having an object, are all that which acts; and all things that have it are what is acted on. In this way the three aspects have wider and narrower substances: wisdom includes aspect, that which acts and what is acted on; the other minds and mental factors are only that which acts and what is acted on; and the other things that have it are only what is acted on. Having explained the differences in the aspects of the ten knowledges, we should now explain their nature, their ground and their body. The verse says:

性俗三九善，依地俗一切，

By nature, worldly knowledge has three; the nine are wholesome; by ground, worldly knowledge is in all;

他心智唯四，法六餘十九，

knowledge of others' minds only four; Dharma-knowledge six; the others nineteen (nine, with the lower three formless);

現起所依身，他心依欲色，

as to the body on which it arises: knowledge of others' minds depends on the desire and form realms;

法智但依欲，餘八通三界。

Dharma-knowledge depends only on the desire realm; the other eight extend through the three realms.

論曰：如是十智三性攝者，謂世俗通三性，餘九智唯是善。依地別者，謂世俗智通依欲界乃至有頂，他心智唯依四根本靜慮，法智依此四及未至、中間，餘依此六地及下三無色。依身別者，謂他心智依欲色界俱可現前，法智但依欲界現起，餘八智現起通依三界身。已辯性地身，當辯念住攝。頌曰：

The treatise says: Of these ten knowledges, those included in the three natures are as follows: worldly knowledge extends over the three natures, while the other nine are only wholesome. As for differences of ground: worldly knowledge extends over the desire realm up to the peak of existence; knowledge of others' minds depends only on the four basic dhyanas; Dharma-knowledge depends on those four and the preliminary ground and the intermediate dhyana; the others depend on those six grounds and the lower three formless states. As for differences of body: knowledge of others' minds can be present depending on bodies of the desire realm and form realm; Dharma-knowledge arises only depending on the desire realm; the other eight arise depending on bodies of all three realms. Having explained nature, ground and body, we should now explain the inclusion in the foundations of mindfulness. The verse says:

諸智念住攝，滅智唯最後，

The various knowledges are included in the foundations of mindfulness; knowledge of cessation only in the last;

他心智後三，餘八智通四。

knowledge of others' minds in the last three; the other eight extend through all four.

論曰：滅智攝在法念住中，他心智後三攝，所餘八皆通四。如是十智展轉相望，一一當言幾智為境？頌曰：

The treatise says: The knowledge of cessation is included in the foundation of mindfulness of dharmas; the knowledge of others' minds in the last three; the other eight all extend to the four. Taking these ten knowledges in relation to one another, how many knowledges should each be said to take as object? The verse says:

諸智互相緣，法類道各九，

The knowledges take one another as objects: Dharma-knowledge, subsequent knowledge and the path each nine;

苦集智各二，四皆十滅非。

the knowledges of suffering and origin each two; four take all ten; the knowledge of cessation does not.

論曰：法智能緣九智為境，除類智。類智能緣九智為境，除法智。道智能緣九智為境，除世俗智，非道攝故。苦集二智一一能緣二智為境，謂俗、他心。世俗、他心、盡、無生智皆緣十智為境。滅智不緣諸智為境，唯以擇滅為所緣故。十智所緣總有幾法？何智幾法為所緣境？頌曰：

The treatise says: Dharma-knowledge can take nine knowledges as object, except subsequent knowledge. Subsequent knowledge can take nine knowledges as object, except Dharma-knowledge. The knowledge of the path can take nine knowledges as object, except worldly knowledge, since it is not included in the path. The two knowledges of suffering and origin can each take two knowledges as object, namely worldly knowledge and knowledge of others' minds. Worldly knowledge, knowledge of others' minds, and the knowledges of exhaustion and non-arising all take ten knowledges as object. The knowledge of cessation does not take any of the knowledges as object, since it takes only cessation through discrimination as its object. How many dharmas in total are taken as objects by the ten knowledges? How many dharmas are the objects of each knowledge? The verse says:

所緣總有十，謂三界無漏，

The objects taken in total are ten: the three realms, the undefiled,

無為各有二，俗緣十法五，

and the unconditioned each in two; worldly knowledge takes ten; Dharma-knowledge five;

類七苦集六，滅緣一道二，

subsequent knowledge seven; suffering and origin six; cessation one; path two;

他心智緣三，盡無生各九。

knowledge of others' minds three; exhaustion and non-arising nine each.

論曰：十智所緣總有十法，謂有為法分為八種，三界所繫無漏有為各有相應不相應故。無為分二種，善、無記別故。俗智總緣十法為境。法智緣五，謂欲界二、無漏道二及善無為。類智緣七，謂色無色無漏道六及善無為。苦集智各緣三界所繫六。滅智緣一，謂善無為。道智緣二，謂無漏道。他心智緣欲色無漏三相應法。盡無生智緣有為八及善無為。頗有一念智緣一切法不？不爾。豈不非我觀智知一切法皆非我耶？此亦不能緣一切法。不緣何法？此體是何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The objects of the ten knowledges are in total ten dharmas: the conditioned dharmas are divided into eight kinds, since the conditioned bound to each of the three realms, and the undefiled conditioned, each may be associated or not associated; the unconditioned is divided into two kinds, wholesome and neutral. Worldly knowledge takes all ten dharmas as object. Dharma-knowledge takes five: two of the desire realm, two of the undefiled path, and the wholesome unconditioned. Subsequent knowledge takes seven: the six of the form and formless realms and the undefiled path, and the wholesome unconditioned. The knowledges of suffering and origin each take the six bound to the three realms. The knowledge of cessation takes one, namely the wholesome unconditioned. The knowledge of the path takes two, namely the undefiled path. The knowledge of others' minds takes the three associated dharmas of the desire realm, form realm and the undefiled. The knowledges of exhaustion and non-arising take eight conditioned dharmas and the wholesome unconditioned. Is there a single moment of knowledge that takes all dharmas as object? No. Does not the contemplative knowledge of non-self know all dharmas to be non-self? This too cannot take all dharmas as object. Which dharma does it not take? What is its substance? The verse says:

俗智除自品，總緣一切法，

Worldly knowledge, excluding its own class, takes all dharmas in general;