Sarvastivada Abhidharmakosa-sastra, Fascicle 25

他心修生呪，又加占相成，

The knowledge of others' minds arises through cultivation and spells, and is also accomplished by divination;

三修生業成，除修皆三性，

The three arise through cultivation and karma; apart from cultivation all have three natures;

人唯無生得，地獄初能知。

Among humans only the non-arising obtains it, and in hell beings first can know.

論曰：神境智類總有五種：一修得、二生得、三呪成、四藥成、五業成。曼馱多王及中有等諸神境智是業成攝。他心智類總有四種，前三如上，加占相成。餘三各三，謂修、生、業。除修所得，皆通善等。非定果故不得通名。人中都無生所得者，餘皆容有。隨其所應本性生念業所成攝。於地獄趣初受生時，唯以生得他心、宿住，知他心等及過去生，苦受逼已更無知義。若生餘趣，如應當知。

The treatise says: Knowledge of supernormal power (the power of transformation) is of five kinds in all: obtained by cultivation, obtained by birth, accomplished by mantra, accomplished by drugs, and accomplished by karma. The supernormal powers of King Mandhatr (the name of a wheel-turning king), of beings in the intermediate state, and the like are included under those accomplished by karma. Knowledge of others' minds is of four kinds in all: the first three are as above, with the addition of that accomplished by reading physical signs. Of the remaining three, each has three kinds, namely cultivation, birth, and karma. Except for what is obtained by cultivation, all of them extend to wholesome and other kinds of mind. Since they are not the fruit of meditative absorption, they are not called by the name of the higher knowledges. Among human beings there is none obtained by birth; among the others, all may exist. They are included under the karma-accomplished kind, following the original nature of the mind that gives rise to them. When one first takes birth in the hell realm, one knows others' minds and the like, and past lives, only through the knowledge of others' minds and of past abodes obtained by birth; once oppressed by painful sensation, there is nothing further to be known. If one is born in the other realms, one should understand in the same way.

尊者世親造

Composed by the Venerable Vasubandhu

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by the Tripitaka Master Xuanzang by imperial command

分別定品第八之一

Chapter 8, Part 1: Analysis of Meditative Absorption

已說諸智所成功德，餘性功德今次當辯，於中先辯所依止定。且諸定內靜慮云何？頌曰：

Having explained the merits accomplished through the various kinds of knowledge, we shall now discuss the other kinds of merits in their own nature. Among them, we first discuss the meditative absorptions on which they rely. And among the absorptions, what are the dhyanas like? The verse says:

靜慮四各二，於中生已說，

The four dhyanas each have two kinds; birth in them has already been explained,

定謂善一境，並伴五蘊性，

Absorption is wholesome one-pointedness of mind, together with its five aggregates as companions,

初具伺喜樂，後漸離前支。

The first has inquiry, joy and bliss; the later ones gradually drop the earlier factors.

論曰：一切功德多依靜慮，故應先辯靜慮差別。此總有四種，謂初二三四，四各有二，謂定及生。生靜慮體世品已說，謂第四八，前三各三。定靜慮體總而言之是善性攝心一境性，以善等持為自性故；若並助伴，五蘊為性。何名一境性？謂專一所緣。若爾，即心專一境位，依之建立三摩地名，不應別有餘心所法。別法令心於一境轉名三摩地，非體即心。豈不諸心剎那滅故皆一境轉，何用等持？若謂令心於第二念不散亂故須有等持，則於相應等持無用。又由此故三摩地成。寧不即由斯心於一境轉？又三摩地是大地法，應一切心皆一境轉。不爾，餘品等持劣故。有餘師說：即心一境相續轉時名三摩地，契經說此為增上心學故，心清淨最勝即四靜慮故。依何義故立靜慮名？由此寂靜能審慮故。審慮即是實了知義，如說心在定，能如實了知，審慮義中置地界故。此宗審慮以慧為體。若爾，諸等持皆應名靜慮。不爾，唯勝方立此名。如世間言發光名日，非螢燭等亦得日名。靜慮如何獨名為勝？諸等持內唯此攝支，止觀均行最能審慮，得現法樂住及樂通行名，故此等持獨名靜慮。若爾，染汙寧得此名？由彼亦能邪審慮故，是則應有太過之失。無太過失，要相似中方立名故，如敗種等。世尊亦說有惡靜慮。若一境性是靜慮體，依何相立初二三四？具伺喜樂建立為初，由此已明亦具尋義，必俱行故，如煙與火。非伺有喜樂，而不與尋俱。漸離前支立二三四，離伺有二，離二有樂，具離三種。如其次第，故一境性分為四種。已辯靜慮。無色云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: All merits mostly rely on the dhyanas, so the distinctions among the dhyanas should be discussed first. There are four in all: the first, second, third and fourth. Each of the four has two kinds, namely absorption and birth. The nature of birth in a dhyana was already explained in the chapter on the world: the fourth has eight kinds, and each of the first three has three. The nature of dhyana as absorption, in general terms, is the one-pointedness of a mind of wholesome nature, with wholesome concentration as its own nature; if the accompanying factors are included, it has the five aggregates as its nature. What is meant by one-pointedness? It means focusing exclusively on one object. If so, then it is simply the state in which the mind is focused on a single object, and the name samadhi is established in dependence on it; there should be no separate mental factor. A separate factor that makes the mind proceed toward one object is called samadhi, but its substance is not the mind itself. But since every moment of mind ceases instantly and so proceeds toward a single object, what is the use of concentration? If one says that concentration is needed so that the mind is not scattered in the second moment, then for the associated concentration it would be useless. Moreover, because of this, samadhi would be established; so why not say that by this alone the mind proceeds toward a single object? Furthermore, samadhi is a universal mental factor and should be present in every mind, all of which proceed toward a single object. If not, the concentration of other classes would be inferior. Other masters say: when the mind continues to proceed toward one object in a stream, it is called samadhi. For the sutra says this is the training in the higher mind, and because the purity of the mind is supreme, it is the four dhyanas. On what ground is the name dhyana established? Because through this tranquility one can examine and contemplate. Contemplation means actual, true knowing, as in the saying that the mind in concentration can truly know; and the sense of contemplation is that of establishing a ground. According to this school, contemplation has wisdom as its substance. If so, all concentrations should be called dhyana. Not so; only the superior ones are given this name. In the world, what gives off light is called the sun, but fireflies and candles are not given the name sun. Why is dhyana alone called superior? Among all concentrations, only this one includes the factors, balances calm and insight evenly, and is best able to contemplate; it obtains the name of dwelling in bliss in this very life and of bliss that spreads through the body, and therefore only this concentration is called dhyana. If so, how can a defiled one be given this name? Because it too can contemplate wrongly; but then there would be the fault of excessive extension. There is no such fault, since a name is established only among things that are similar, like a spoiled seed and the like. The World-Honored One also spoke of evil dhyana. If one-pointedness is the substance of dhyana, on what characteristics are the first, second, third and fourth established? The first is established by possessing inquiry, joy and bliss; this makes clear that it also possesses initial thought, since it necessarily occurs together with it, as smoke does with fire. It is not that there is inquiry with joy and bliss but without initial thought. The second, third and fourth are established by gradually dropping the earlier factors: dropping inquiry gives the second, dropping the two gives the third with bliss, and dropping all three gives the fourth. Thus, in due order, one-pointedness is divided into four kinds. The dhyanas have been explained. What of the formless attainments? The verse says:

無色亦如是，四蘊離下地，

The formless attainments are likewise so: four aggregates, apart from the lower realms,

並上三近分，總名除色想，

Together with the three upper access stages, are collectively called the removal of the perception of form,

無色謂無色，後色起從心。

Formless means without form; later form arises from the mind.

空無邊等三，名從加行立，

The names of the Infinity of Space and the others come from the preparatory practice,

非想非非想，昧劣故立名。

Neither-Perception-nor-Non-Perception is so named because perception there is dim and weak.

論曰：此與靜慮數自性同，謂四各二。生如前說，即世品說由生有四。定無色體，總而言之亦善性攝心一境性。依此故說亦如是言。然助伴中此除色蘊，無色無有隨轉色故。雖一境性體相無差，離下地生故分四種。謂若已離第四靜慮生立空無邊處，乃至已離無所有處生立非想非非想處。離名何義？謂由此道解脫下地惑，是離下染義。即此四根本並上三近分，總說名為除去色想。空處近分未得此名，緣下地色起色想故。皆無色故立無色名，此因不成，許有色故。若爾，何故立無色名？由彼色微故名無色，如微黃物亦名無黃。許彼界中色有何相？若彼唯有身語律儀。身語既無，律儀寧有？又無大種，何有造色？若謂如有無漏律儀。不爾，無漏依有漏大種故，又彼定中亦遮有故。若許於彼有色根身，如何可言彼色微少？若謂於彼身量小故，水細蟲極微亦應名無色，亦身量小不可見故。若謂彼身極清妙故，中有色界應名無色。若謂彼身清妙中極，應唯有頂得無色名。如定生身有勝劣故，又生靜慮所有色身非下地根所能取故，與彼何異不名無色？若謂欲色隨義立名，無色不然。此有何理？若謂經說壽煖合故，又說名色與識相依如二蘆束相依住故，又說名色識為緣故，又遮離色乃至離行識有來有去故，由此無色有色理成。此證不成，應審思故。謂所引教應共審思，且契經言壽煖合者，為約一切界、為約欲界說？名色與識相依住者，為約一切界、為約欲色說？所說名色識為緣者，為說一切識皆為名色緣、為說名色生無不緣於識？遮離色至行識有來去者，為遮隨離一、為遮離一切？若謂契經言無簡別，不應於此更致審思。此說不然，太過失故。謂應外煖亦與壽合。又應外名色依識識為緣。又說四食如四識住，色無色界應有段食。

The treatise says: These are the same as the dhyanas in number and nature, that is, each of the four has two kinds. Birth is as explained before, namely the four kinds of birth explained in the chapter on the world. As to the substance of formless absorption, in general it too is the one-pointedness of a mind of wholesome nature. Relying on this, it is said to be likewise. However, among its companions the form aggregate is excluded, because in the formless realm there is no form that accompanies the mind. Although the substance and characteristics of one-pointedness do not differ, it is divided into four kinds according to separation from the lower realms. That is, once one has been freed from birth in the fourth dhyana, the Infinity of Space is established; and so on, until, once one has been freed from the Nothing Whatsoever, the Neither-Perception-nor-Non-Perception is established. What does freedom mean? It means that by this path one is released from the afflictions of the lower realms, that is, freed from the defilements of the lower realms. These four fundamental stages together with the three upper access stages are collectively called the removal of the perception of form. The access stage of space does not yet obtain this name, because it takes the form of the lower realm as its object and gives rise to perception of form. Since all of them are called formless, this reason is not established, because they are admitted to have form. If so, why are they called formless? Because their form is subtle, they are called formless, just as a faintly yellow thing is also called not yellow. What characteristics does form have in those realms, as you admit? If there are only bodily and verbal restraints, then, since body and speech do not exist there, how could restraints exist? Moreover, without the great elements, how could there be derived form? If one says it is like the undefiled restraint, that is not so, since the undefiled depends on defiled great elements, and moreover that is also precluded within those absorptions. If one admits that there is a bodily faculty of form in those realms, how can one say that their form is subtle and slight? If one says it is because their bodies are small, then even microscopic water creatures and atoms would be called formless, since they too are small and invisible. If one says it is because their bodies are extremely pure and refined, then beings in the intermediate state of the form realm should be called formless. If one says their bodies are pure and refined in the extreme, then only the highest should obtain the name formless. Since bodies born of absorption differ in being superior and inferior, and since the material bodies born of the dhyanas cannot be grasped by the faculties of the lower realms, how do they differ from those, so that they are not called formless? If one says that the desire and form realms are named according to their meaning but the formless is not so, what is the reason for this? If one says that the sutra speaks of life and warmth being joined, and says that name-and-form and consciousness depend on each other like two bundled reeds standing together, and says that consciousness has name-and-form as its condition, and also denies that consciousness can come and go apart from form, up to apart from formations, then by these the existence of form in the formless realm is established. This proof is not established, and it should be carefully examined. That is, the scriptures cited should be examined together. First, when the sutra says that life and warmth are joined, is it said with reference to all realms, or only the desire realm? When it says that name-and-form and consciousness depend on each other, is it said of all realms, or of the desire and form realms? When it says that consciousness has name-and-form as its condition, does it mean that every consciousness is a condition for name-and-form, or that the arising of name-and-form is never without consciousness as a condition? When it denies that consciousness can come and go apart from form up to apart from formations, does it deny separation from any one of them, or separation from all of them? If one says that the sutra makes no such distinction and so there is no need to examine further, this statement is not acceptable, because it leads to excessive consequences. That is, external warmth would also have to be joined with life; external name-and-form would also have to depend on consciousness and have consciousness as condition; and it is also said that the four foods are like the four stations of consciousness, so the formless realm would have to have coarse food.

若謂經說有一類天超段食故，又說彼天喜為食故，無斯過者，則無色界不應有色，契經說彼出離色故。又契經言：無色解脫最為寂靜，超諸色故。又契經說：無色有情，一切色想皆超越故。若無色界實有色者，定應彼色自相可知，如何可言超色想等？若謂觀下麁色故說，則於段食亦應許然。又諸靜慮超下麁色，亦應可說出離色言，是則亦應名無色界。又亦應說出離受等，彼亦超下麁受等故。經既不說，知無色中遍超色類，非超受等。由此定知，彼界無色。然契經中說有不出有者，於自地有不能出故，非遍出故、非永出故。又薄伽梵於靜慮中說有色類乃至識類，於無色中說有受類乃至識類，不說有色。若無色中實有色者，何不如靜慮說有色類言？故所立因無不成過。在彼多劫色相續斷，後歿生下色從何生？此從心生，非從色起。謂昔所起色異熟因燻習在心，功能今熟，是故今色從彼心生。彼無色身心依何轉？離身何不轉？下曾不見故。色界無段食，身復依何轉？下亦不見身離段食轉故。又先說彼心轉所依，已釋總名，空無邊等從緣空等得別名耶？不爾。云何？下三無色，如其次第修加行時，思無邊空及無邊識、無所有故建立三名。立第四名由想昧劣，謂無明勝想得非想名，有昧劣想故名非非想。雖加行時亦作是念：諸想如病如箭如癰。若想全無便同痴闇，唯有非想非非想中與上相違寂靜美妙，而不就此加行立名。以若詰言何緣加行作如是念？必應答言以於彼處想昧劣故。由此昧劣故，是立名正因。已辯無色。云何等至？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) If one says that the sutra states that a certain class of gods transcend coarse food, and also says that those gods take joy as food, then since this fault does not arise, the formless realm should not have form, because the sutra says that they have departed from form. The sutra also says: the formless liberation is the most tranquil, because it transcends all forms. The sutra also says: the formless beings have transcended all perceptions of form. If the formless realm really had form, the characteristics of that form would certainly be knowable; how then could it be said that they transcend perception of form and so on? If one says this is said in view of coarse form in the lower realms, then the same should be admitted of coarse food. Moreover, the dhyanas also transcend the coarse form of the lower realms, and it could likewise be said that they have departed from form, and then they too would be called the formless realm. It should also be said that they have departed from sensation and the like, since they also transcend the coarse sensations of the lower realms. Since the sutra does not say so, we know that in the formless realm there is a universal transcendence of the whole class of form, not of sensation and the others. From this we know for certain that those realms have no form. However, the sutra speaks of having what does not go beyond existence; this is because one cannot go beyond one's own stage, not because they have not gone beyond universally or forever. Moreover, the Blessed One, speaking of the dhyanas, mentions the class of form up to the class of consciousness, but speaking of the formless attainments, mentions the class of sensation up to the class of consciousness, and does not mention form. If the formless realm really had form, why would it not be said, as for the dhyanas, that it has the class of form? Therefore the reason we put forward is not faulty by being unestablished. After many kalpas in that realm the stream of form is cut off; when one dies and is born in a lower realm, from what does form arise? It arises from the mind, not from form. That is, the habitual impressions of the ripening cause of the earlier form were planted in the mind, and their potency ripens now; therefore the present form arises from that mind. In that formless realm, on what do body and mind rely to proceed? And why can they not proceed apart from the body? Because we have never seen this in the lower realms. In the form realm there is no coarse food; on what does the body then rely to proceed? Because we have never seen in the lower realms a body proceeding without coarse food. Moreover, we already explained the basis on which the mind there proceeds, so the matter is settled. Do the names Infinity of Space and the rest come from taking space and the rest as objects? No. How then? In the lower three formless attainments, in due order, the three names are established when one cultivates the preparatory practice by contemplating infinite space, infinite consciousness, and nothing whatsoever. The fourth name is established because perception there is dim and weak: strong perception is called perception, hence the name Non-Perception, while the presence of faint perception gives the name Non-Non-Perception. Although in the preparatory practice one also thinks that perceptions are like a disease, an arrow, an abscess, and that if perception were entirely absent one would be like one in stupor and darkness, only in Neither-Perception-nor-Non-Perception is there a tranquility and excellence opposite to those above, and yet the name is not established from the preparatory practice. For if one asks why one thinks thus in the preparatory practice, one must answer that it is because perception there is dim and weak. Hence this dimness and weakness is the true cause of the name. The formless attainments have been explained. What of the attainments of equipoise? The verse says:

此本等至八，前七各有三，

These fundamental attainments are eight; the first seven each have three kinds,

謂味淨無漏，後味淨二種，

Namely tasting, pure and undefiled; the last has two kinds, tasting and pure,

味謂愛相應，淨謂世間善，

Tasting means associated with craving; pure means worldly wholesome,

此即所味著，無漏謂出世。

This is what is savored and clung to; undefiled means supramundane.

論曰：此上所辯靜慮無色。根本等至總有八種，於中前七各具有三，有頂等至唯有二種，此地昧劣無無漏故。初味等至，謂愛相應，愛能味著故名為味，彼相應故此得味名。淨等至名目世善定，與無貪等諸白淨法相應起故，此得淨名。即味相應所味著境，此無間滅彼味定生。緣過去淨深生味著，爾時雖名出所味定，於能味定得名為入。無漏定者，謂出世定，愛不緣故非所味著。如是所說八等至中靜慮攝支，非諸無色。於四靜慮各有幾支？頌曰：

The treatise says: Of the dhyanas and formless attainments explained above, the fundamental attainments are eight in all. Among them the first seven each have three kinds, while the Peak of Existence has only two, because that stage is dim and weak and has no undefiled attainment. The first, the tasting attainment, is associated with craving; since craving savors and clings, it is called tasting, and because it is associated with that, this attainment obtains the name tasting. The name pure attainment designates the worldly wholesome absorption; because it arises together with the pure white factors such as non-greed, it obtains the name pure. The object that is savored in association with tasting is this; when it ceases without interval, that tasting absorption arises. Taking the past pure absorption as object, one develops deep attachment; at that time, although one is said to emerge from the savored absorption, with regard to the absorption that savors one is said to enter it. The undefiled absorption is the supramundane absorption; because craving does not take it as object, it is not what is savored and clung to. Of the eight attainments spoken of in this way, it is the dhyanas that include the factors, not the formless attainments. How many factors does each of the four dhyanas have? The verse says:

靜慮初五支，尋伺喜樂定；

The first dhyana has five factors: initial thought, inquiry, joy, bliss, and concentration;

第二有四支，內淨喜樂定；

The second has four factors: inner serenity, joy, bliss, and concentration;

第三具五支，捨念慧樂定；

The third has five factors: equanimity, mindfulness, wisdom, bliss, and concentration;

第四有四支，捨念中受定。

The fourth has four factors: equanimity, mindfulness, neutral sensation, and concentration.

論曰：唯淨無漏四靜慮中初具五支：一尋、二伺、三喜、四樂、五等持。此中等持頌說為定，等持與定名異體同，故契經說心定等定名正等持。此亦名為心一境性，義如前釋。傳說唯定是靜慮亦靜慮支，餘四支是靜慮支非靜慮。如實義者，如四支軍，餘靜慮支應知亦爾。第二靜慮唯有四支：一內等淨、二喜、三樂、四等持。第三靜慮具有五支：一行捨、二正念、三正慧、四受樂、五等持。第四靜慮唯有四支：一行捨清淨、二念清淨、三非苦樂受、四等持。靜慮支名既有十八，於中實事總有幾種？頌曰：

The treatise says: Only in the pure and undefiled four dhyanas does the first have five factors: first initial thought, second inquiry, third joy, fourth bliss, fifth concentration. Here the verse calls concentration absorption; concentration and absorption differ in name but are the same in substance, and so the sutra speaks of the mind being settled, equally settled, and rightly concentrated. This is also called one-pointedness of mind, whose meaning was explained above. It is said that only absorption is both the dhyana and a factor of the dhyana, while the other four factors are factors of the dhyana but are not the dhyana. In truth, it is like a four-division army; the factors of the other dhyanas should be understood likewise. The second dhyana has only four factors: first inner serenity, second joy, third bliss, fourth concentration. The third dhyana has five factors: first equanimity in action, second right mindfulness, third right wisdom, fourth the sensation of bliss, fifth concentration. The fourth dhyana has only four factors: first purity of equanimity, second purity of mindfulness, third sensation neither painful nor pleasant, fourth concentration. Since the names of the dhyana factors number eighteen, how many distinct entities are there among them? The verse says:

此實事十一，初二樂輕安，

These entities number eleven: the first two bliss and pliancy,

內淨即信根，喜即是喜受。

Inner serenity is the faculty of faith; joy is the sensation of joy.

論曰：此支實事唯有十一，謂初五支即五實事。第二靜慮三支如前，增內淨支足前為六。第三靜慮等持如前，增餘四支足前為十。第四靜慮三支如前，增非苦樂支足前為十一。由此故說，有是初支非第二支，應作四句。第一句謂尋伺。第二句謂內淨。第三句謂喜、樂、等持。第四句。謂除前餘法。餘支相對，如理應思。何故第三說增樂受？由初二樂，輕安攝故。何理為證知是輕安？初二定中無樂根故。非初二定有身受樂，正在定中無五識故。亦無心受樂，以說有喜故。喜即喜受，無一心中二受俱行，故無樂受。不可喜樂更互現前，說具五支及四支故。有說：無有心受樂根，三靜慮中說樂支者，皆是身受所攝樂根。若爾，何故有契經說：云何樂根？謂順樂觸力所引生身心樂受。有餘於此增益心言，諸部經中唯說身故。又第三定所立樂支，契經自說為身所受樂故。若謂於此說意為身，此說身名為有何德？又第四定輕安倍增，而不說彼有樂支故。若謂輕安要順樂受方名為樂，第三靜慮輕安順樂應是樂支。若謂彼輕安為行捨所損。不爾，行捨增輕安故。又彼輕安勝前二故。又契經說：若於爾時諸聖弟子於離生喜身作證具足住，彼於爾時已斷五法，修習五法皆得圓滿，廣說乃至何等名為所修五法？一歡、二喜、三輕安、四樂、五三摩地。此經輕安與樂別說，故初二樂非即輕安。若言定中寧有身識？有亦無失，許在定中有輕安風勝定所起，順生樂受遍觸身故。若謂外散故應失壞定者，無如是失，此輕安風從勝定生，引內身樂還能順起三摩地故。若謂起身識應名出定者，此難不然，由前因故。若謂依止欲界身根不應得生色界觸識，緣輕安識，許生無過。若爾，正在無漏定中觸及身識應成無漏。勿所立支少分有漏、少分無漏，成違理失。無違理失。所以者何？許說身輕安是覺支攝故。若謂順彼故說覺支，無漏亦應許如是說。

The treatise says: The entities of these factors are only eleven. That is, the five factors of the first are five entities. The three factors of the second are as before, and the addition of the factor of inner serenity makes six. The concentration of the third is as before, and the addition of the other four factors makes ten. The three factors of the fourth are as before, and the addition of the factor of neutral sensation makes eleven. For this reason, when one says that something is a factor of the first but not of the second, four alternatives should be made. The first is initial thought and inquiry. The second is inner serenity. The third is joy, bliss and concentration. The fourth is the remaining dharmas apart from the foregoing. The mutual relations of the other factors should be reflected on in the same way. Why is the sensation of bliss said to be added in the third? Because the bliss of the first two is included under pliancy. What is the proof that it is pliancy? Because in the first two absorptions there is no faculty of bliss. It is not that in the first two absorptions there is bodily pleasant sensation, because while in absorption there are no five sense consciousnesses. Nor is there mental pleasant sensation, since joy is said to be present. Joy is the sensation of joy, and two sensations do not occur together in a single mind, so there is no sensation of bliss. It cannot be that joy and bliss alternately arise, since it is said that there are five factors and four factors. Some say: there is no mental faculty of bliss; the bliss factor spoken of in the three dhyanas is in every case the faculty of bliss included in bodily sensation. If so, why does a sutra say: what is the faculty of bliss? It is the mental and bodily pleasant sensation produced by the force of agreeable contact. Others have added the word mind here; but in the sutras of all the schools only the body is mentioned. Moreover, the sutra itself says that the bliss factor established in the third absorption is bliss experienced by the body. If one says that here the mind is called the body, what virtue is there in calling it the body? Furthermore, pliancy is doubled in the fourth absorption, yet it is not said to have the bliss factor. If one says that pliancy is called bliss only when it accords with pleasant sensation, then the pliancy of the third dhyana, which accords with bliss, should be the bliss factor. If one says that that pliancy is damaged by equanimity in action, that is not so, since equanimity in action increases pliancy; and moreover that pliancy is superior to the former two. Again the sutra says: when the noble disciples at that time dwell having realized and perfected in the body the joy born of detachment, at that time they have abandoned five things and cultivated five things to completion, and so on, up to: what are the five things to be cultivated? First delight, second joy, third pliancy, fourth bliss, fifth samadhi. In this sutra pliancy and bliss are mentioned separately, so the bliss of the first two dhyanas is not pliancy itself. If one asks how there can be bodily consciousness in absorption, there is no fault in admitting it: it is admitted that in absorption there is a superior wind of pliancy arising from the absorption, which spreads through the body and conforms to the arising of pleasant sensation. If one says that being scattered outward it should destroy the absorption, there is no such fault, because this wind of pliancy arises from superior absorption, induces bliss in the inner body, and in turn conforms to the arising of samadhi. If one says that arising of bodily consciousness should be called emerging from absorption, this objection is not valid, for the reason given before. If one says that, since it depends on the bodily faculty of the desire realm, it should not be able to give rise to bodily contact and consciousness of the form realm, then the consciousness that takes pliancy as object is admitted to arise without fault. If so, bodily consciousness in contact within the undefiled absorption would become undefiled. But one should not allow the faults of a factor being partly defiled and partly undefiled, which would contradict reason. There is no contradiction, because it is admitted that bodily pliancy is included among the factors of awakening. If one says it is called a factor of awakening because it accords with those, then the undefiled should also be admitted to be said so.

若謂許說，便違契經。如契經言：諸所有眼乃至廣說。此經中說十五界全皆有漏故，無違經過，此約餘觸及餘身識密意說故。如何無漏靜慮現前，少支有漏、少支無漏？起不俱時，斯有何失。若謂喜樂不俱起故，應無五支及四支理。此亦無過，約容有說有喜樂支，如有尋伺。若謂尋伺亦許俱起，於不俱起為喻不成。此非不成，心之麁細互相違故不應俱起。又於不俱起不能說過故。由此可說，依初五支減二三四立第二等，即由此理初說五支，擬漸離前、建立後故。無漸減故，不說想等。或應說何故初唯立五支？若謂此五資初定勝故立為支。此不應理，念慧能資勝尋伺故。雖有一類作如是說，然非古昔諸軌範師共施設故，應審思擇。應說何法名內等淨？此定遠離尋伺鼓動，相續清淨轉，名為內等淨。若有尋伺鼓動，相續不清淨轉，如河有浪。若爾，此應無有別體，如何許有十一實事？是故應說此即信根。謂若證得第二靜慮，則於定地亦可離中有深信生，名內等淨。信是淨相，故立淨名。離外均流，故名內等。淨而內等，故立內等淨名。有餘師言：此內等淨等持尋伺皆無別體。若無別體，心所應不成，心分位殊亦得名心所。雖有此理，非我所宗。如上所言，喜即喜受。以何為證知決定然？汝等豈言喜非喜受，如餘部許，我亦許然。餘部云何許非喜受？謂別有喜是心所法，三定中樂皆是喜受，故喜、喜受其體各異。非三定樂可名喜受，二阿笈摩分明證故。如辯顛倒契經中說：漸無餘滅憂等五根，第三定中無餘滅喜，於第四定無餘滅樂。又餘經說：第四靜慮斷樂斷苦先喜憂沒。故第三定必無喜根，由此喜受是喜非樂。如是所說諸靜慮支，染靜慮中為皆有不？不爾。云何？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) If one says that this admission contradicts the sutra, as the sutra says: all eyes and so on, in full, then, since this sutra says that all fifteen realms are defiled, there is no fault of contradicting the sutra, because it was said with a hidden intention regarding other contact and other bodily consciousness. How can the undefiled dhyana, when manifest, have some factors defiled and some undefiled? They arise at different times, so what fault is there? If one says that, since joy and bliss do not arise together, there should be no five factors or four factors, this too is not a fault, because it is said that there may be joy and bliss factors, as with initial thought and inquiry. If one says that initial thought and inquiry are also admitted to arise together, so the example of not arising together is not established, this is not unestablished, because the coarse and the subtle states of mind are mutually opposed and so should not arise together; and moreover one cannot point out a fault in things that do not arise together. From this it can be said that by gradually reducing two, three and four factors from the first five, the second and the rest are established; by this reasoning the first is said to have five factors, so as to establish the later ones by gradual dropping. Since there is no gradual reduction, perception and the like are not mentioned. Or it might be asked why the first has only five factors established. If one says that these five aid the superiority of the first absorption and so are established as factors, this is unreasonable, because mindfulness and wisdom aid even more than initial thought and inquiry. Although some say so, it was not the doctrine jointly established by the ancient masters, so it should be examined and chosen. It should be said: what dharma is called inner serenity? This absorption is far from the stirring of initial thought and inquiry, and the stream proceeds in purity; this is called inner serenity. If there is stirring of initial thought and inquiry, the stream does not proceed in purity, like a river with waves. If so, it would have no separate substance; how then is it admitted to be one of the eleven entities? It should be said that it is the faculty of faith. That is, when one attains the second dhyana, then in the absorption stage, having left the intermediate state, deep faith arises, and this is called inner serenity. Faith has the characteristic of purity, so the name purity is established. Being apart from outward flowing, it is called inner and even. It is pure and inwardly even, so the name inner serenity is established. Some other masters say: inner serenity, concentration, initial thought and inquiry have no separate substance. If they had no separate substance, mental factors would not be established; but a different phase of mind could also be called a mental factor. Although this reasoning exists, it is not our doctrine. As said above, joy is the sensation of joy. What proof is there that it is certainly so? Do you say that joy is not the sensation of joy? As other schools admit, we also admit so. How do the other schools admit that it is not the sensation of joy? They say that joy is a separate mental factor, and that the bliss in the three absorptions is all the sensation of joy, so joy and the sensation of joy differ in substance. The bliss of the three absorptions cannot be called the sensation of joy, since the two Agamas clearly prove it. As in the sutra on the explanation of inversions: the five faculties beginning with sorrow are extinguished without remainder in due order; in the third absorption joy is extinguished without remainder, and in the fourth absorption bliss is extinguished without remainder. Another sutra says: in the fourth dhyana pleasure and pain are abandoned, and earlier joy and sorrow have vanished. Therefore the third absorption certainly has no faculty of joy, and so the sensation of joy is joy, not bliss. Of the dhyana factors spoken of in this way, do all of them exist in defiled dhyanas? Not so. How then? The verse says:

染如次從初，無喜樂內淨，

In the defiled ones, in order from the first, joy and bliss, inner serenity are lacking,

正念慧捨念，餘說無安捨。

Right mindfulness and wisdom, and equanimity with mindfulness; others say pliancy and equanimity are lacking.

論曰：如上所說諸靜慮支，染靜慮中非皆具有。且有一類隨相說言：初染中無離生喜樂，非離煩惱而得生故。第二染中無內等淨，彼為煩惱所擾濁故。第三染中無正念慧，彼為染樂所迷亂故。第四染中無捨念淨，彼為煩惱所染汙故。有餘師說：初二染中但無輕安，後二染中但無行捨，大善攝故。契經中說：三定有動，第四不動。依何義說？頌曰：

The treatise says: Of the dhyana factors spoken of above, the defiled dhyanas do not possess all. Some say, following the characteristics: in the first defiled dhyana there is no joy and bliss born of detachment, because it does not arise apart from the afflictions. In the second defiled dhyana there is no inner serenity, because it is disturbed and muddied by afflictions. In the third defiled dhyana there are no right mindfulness and wisdom, because it is confused by defiled bliss. In the fourth defiled dhyana there is no purity of equanimity and mindfulness, because it is stained by afflictions. Other masters say: in the first two defiled dhyanas only pliancy is lacking, and in the last two only equanimity in action is lacking, because these are included among the great wholesome factors. The sutra says: the three dhyanas have movement, the fourth is immovable. In what sense is this said? The verse says:

第四名不動，離八災患故，

The fourth is called immovable, because it is free from eight calamities,

八者謂尋伺，四受入出息。

The eight are initial thought and inquiry, the four sensations, and in-breath and out-breath.

論曰：下三靜慮名有動者，有災患故。第四靜慮名不動者，無災患故。災患有八，其八者何？尋、伺、四受、入息、出息。此八災患第四都無，故佛世尊說為不動。然契經說：第四靜慮不為尋伺喜樂所動。有餘師說：第四靜慮如密室燈照而無動。如定靜慮，所有諸受生亦爾不？不爾。云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The lower three dhyanas are called movable because they have calamities. The fourth dhyana is called immovable because it has no calamities. There are eight calamities; what are the eight? Initial thought, inquiry, the four sensations, in-breath and out-breath. The fourth has none of these eight calamities, and so the Buddha, the World-Honored One, called it immovable. However, the sutra says that the fourth dhyana is not moved by initial thought, inquiry, joy and bliss. Other masters say that the fourth dhyana is like a lamp in a closed chamber, shining without moving. Do the sensations arising in birth in the dhyanas also match those in absorption? Not so. How then? The verse says:

生靜慮從初，有喜樂捨受，

In birth in the dhyanas, beginning with the first, there are joy, bliss and equanimity sensations,

及喜捨樂捨，唯捨受如次。

Then joy and equanimity, then bliss and equanimity, and then only equanimity sensation, in order.

論曰：生靜慮中初有三受：一喜受，意識相應；二樂受，三識相應；三捨受，四識相應。第二有二，謂喜與捨，意識相應無有樂受，無餘識故、心悅麁故。第三有二，謂樂與捨，意識相應。第四有一，謂唯捨受，意識相應。是謂定生受有差別。上三靜慮無三識身及無尋伺，如何生彼能見聞觸及起表業？非生彼地無眼識等，但非彼繫。所以者何？頌曰：

The treatise says: In birth in the dhyanas, the first has three sensations: first the sensation of joy, associated with mental consciousness; second the sensation of bliss, associated with the three consciousnesses; third the sensation of equanimity, associated with the four consciousnesses. The second has two, namely joy and equanimity, associated with mental consciousness; there is no sensation of bliss, because there are no other consciousnesses and because the joy of mind is coarse. The third has two, namely bliss and equanimity, associated with mental consciousness. The fourth has one, only the sensation of equanimity, associated with mental consciousness. These are the distinctions of sensation in birth by absorption. In the upper three dhyanas there are no three groups of consciousness and no initial thought or inquiry; how then, when born there, can one see, hear, touch and give rise to expressive karma? It is not that in those realms of birth there is no eye consciousness and so on, but that they do not belong to that realm. Why is this? The verse says:

生上三靜慮，起三識表心，

Born in the upper three dhyanas, the three consciousnesses and the mind of expression arise,

皆初靜慮攝，唯無覆無記。

All belong to the first dhyana, and are only unobstructed neutral.

論曰：生上三地起三識身及發表心皆初定繫。生上起下如起化心，故能見聞觸及發表，此四唯是無覆無記。不起下染，已離染故。不起下善，以下劣故。如是別釋靜慮事已。淨等等至初得云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Those born in the upper three stages who give rise to the three groups of consciousness and the mind of expression all belong to the first absorption. Born above and arising below, it is like arising of a mind of transformation; therefore one can see, hear, touch and give rise to expression. These four are only unobstructed neutral. One does not give rise to lower defiled ones, since one has already been freed from defilement; nor to lower wholesome ones, because they are inferior. Thus the separate explanation of dhyana matters is complete. How are the pure and other attainments first obtained? The verse says:

全不成而得，淨由離染生，

The pure is obtained when it was wholly not possessed, by freedom from defilement or by birth,

無漏由離染，染由生及退。

The undefiled by freedom from defilement; the defiled by birth and by falling back.

論曰：八本等至隨其所應，若全不成而獲得者，淨由離染及由受生，謂在下地離下地染，及從上地生自地時。下七皆然。有頂不爾，唯由離染無由生故。遮何故說全不成言？為遮已成更得少分，如由加行得順決擇分等，及由退得順退分定。即依此義作是問言：頗有淨定由離染得？由離染捨、由退由生，為問亦爾。曰：有，謂順退分。且初靜慮順退分攝，離欲染時得，離自染時捨，退離自染得，退離欲染捨。從上生自得，從自生下捨。餘地所攝，應如理思。無漏但由離染故得，謂聖離下染，得上地無漏。此亦但據全不成者，若先已成，餘時亦得，謂盡智位得無學道，於練根時得學無學。餘加行及退，皆如理應思。豈不由入正性離生，亦名初得無漏等至？此非決定。以次第者，爾時未得根本定故。此中但論決定得者，染由受生及退故得。謂上地沒生下地時得下地染，及於此地離染退時得此地染。何等至後生幾等至？頌曰：

The treatise says: Of the eight fundamental attainments, as appropriate, one obtains them when they were wholly not possessed. The pure is obtained by freedom from defilement and by birth: that is, in a lower stage when one is freed from the defilements of the lower stages, and when one is born into one's own stage from a higher stage. The lower seven are all like this. The Peak of Existence is not so; it is obtained only by freedom from defilement and not by birth, because nothing is higher from which to be born there. Why is the phrase wholly not possessed said? To exclude obtaining a further part of what is already possessed, as one obtains the factors that accord with penetrating insight and the like through the preparatory practice, and as one obtains the absorption that accords with decline through falling back. On this basis the question is posed: is there a pure absorption that is obtained by freedom from defilement, abandoned by freedom from defilement, abandoned by falling back, and abandoned by birth? The question is likewise posed for the other cases. Answer: yes, namely that which accords with decline. Take, for example, what is included in the first dhyana's decline-accordant kind: it is obtained when one is freed from the defilement of the desire realm, abandoned when one is freed from the defilement of one's own stage, obtained when one falls back from freedom from one's own defilement, abandoned when one falls back from freedom from the desire-realm defilement; it is obtained when one is born into one's own stage from above, and abandoned when one is born into a lower stage from one's own. What is included in the other stages should be reflected on in the same way. The undefiled is obtained only by freedom from defilement: that is, when a noble one is freed from the defilements of the lower stages, he obtains the undefiled of the higher stage. This too is said only of what was wholly not possessed; if it was already possessed, it can also be obtained at other times, as in the moment of the knowledge of extinction one obtains the path of no more learning, and in the moment of refining the faculties one obtains the learner and the non-learner. The other preparatory practices and cases of falling back should be reflected on in the same way. Is it not so that by entering the right and fixed state through detachment one also obtains for the first time the undefiled attainment? This is not certain, because in the sequential case one has not at that time yet obtained the fundamental absorption. Here only what is obtained with certainty is discussed. The defiled is obtained by birth and by falling back: that is, when one dies in a higher stage and is born in a lower stage one obtains the defilement of the lower stage, and when one falls back from freedom from defilement in this stage one obtains the defilement of this stage. After which attainment does which attainment arise? The verse says:

無漏次生善，上下至第三，

From the undefiled the wholesome arises next, up and down as far as the third,

淨次生亦然，兼生自地染。

From the pure it arises next in the same way, and also gives rise to the defiled of its own stage.

染生自淨染，並下一地淨，

From the defiled, the pure and defiled of its own stage arise, and the pure of the one stage below,

死淨生一切，染生自下染。

At death the pure gives rise to everything; the defiled gives rise to the defiled of its own and lower stages.

論曰：無漏次生自上下善，善言具攝淨及無漏。然於上下各至第三，遠故無能超生第四。故於無漏七等至中，從初靜慮無間生六，謂自二三各淨無漏。無所有處無間生七，謂自下六上地唯淨。第二靜慮無間生八，謂自上六並下地二。識無邊處無間生九，謂自下六並上地三。第三四空無間生十，謂上下八並自地二。類智無間能生無色。法智不然，依緣下故。從淨等至所生亦然，而各兼生自地染汙故。有頂淨無間生六，謂自淨染、下淨無漏。從初靜慮無間生七。無所有八，第二定九，識處生十，餘生十一。從染等至生自淨染並生次下一地淨定。謂為自地煩惱所逼，於下淨定亦生尊重，故有從染生次下淨。若於染淨能正了知，可能從染轉生下淨；非諸染汙能正了知，如何彼能從染生淨？先願力故。謂先願言：寧得下淨不須上染。先願勢力隨相續轉，故後從染生下淨定。如先立願方趣睡眠，至所期時便能覺寤。無漏與染必不相生，淨俱相生故三有別。如是所說淨染生染，但約在定淨及染說。若生淨染，生染不然，謂命終時從生得淨，一一無間生一切染。若從生染，一一無間能生自地一切下染，不生上者未離下故。所言從淨生無漏者，為一切種皆能生耶？不爾。云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The undefiled gives rise next to the wholesome of its own stage and of higher and lower stages; the word wholesome includes both the pure and the undefiled. However, in the upper and lower directions one can go only as far as the third, because it is far, so none can leap to the fourth. Hence, among the seven undefiled attainments, from the first dhyana without interval six arise, namely the pure and undefiled of its own and of the second and third. From Nothing Whatsoever without interval seven arise, namely six of its own and lower stages and the pure only of the higher stage. From the second dhyana without interval eight arise, namely six of its own and higher stages and two of the lower stage. From Infinity of Consciousness without interval nine arise, namely six of its own and lower stages and three of the higher stage. From the third and fourth formless attainments without interval ten arise, namely eight of upper and lower stages and two of its own. The knowledge of kinds can give rise without interval to the formless attainments; the knowledge of dharmas cannot, because it takes the lower as its object. What arises from pure attainments is likewise so, with the addition that each also gives rise to the defiled of its own stage. From the pure Peak of Existence without interval six arise, namely its own pure and defiled and the pure and undefiled of the lower stage. From the first dhyana without interval seven arise. From Nothing Whatsoever, eight; from the second dhyana, nine; from Infinity of Consciousness, ten; from the others, eleven. From defiled attainments there arise the pure and defiled of its own stage, together with the pure absorption of the next lower stage. That is, pressed by the afflictions of its own stage, one also comes to value the pure absorption of the lower stage, and so there is arising of the pure of the next lower stage from the defiled. If one could correctly know the defiled and the pure, one might be able to turn from the defiled and be born into the lower pure; but since the defiled cannot correctly know, how can one arise from the defiled into the pure? Because of prior vow power. That is, one earlier made the vow: I would rather obtain the lower pure than the higher defiled. The force of the earlier vow follows the mental stream, and so afterward the lower pure absorption arises from the defiled. It is like making a vow before going to sleep and then waking at the appointed time. The undefiled and the defiled certainly do not give rise to each other, while with the pure they arise mutually, so there are three kinds of difference. The arising of the defiled from the pure, spoken of in this way, is said only of the pure and defiled in absorption. As for the arising of the defiled from the pure, it is not so in the case of birth: at the time of death, from the pure obtained by birth, each one gives rise without interval to all the defiled. From the defiled obtained by birth, each one can give rise without interval to all the defiled of its own and lower stages, but not to those of the higher, because one has not yet been freed from the lower. As to what is said of arising of the undefiled from the pure, can all kinds give rise to it? Not so. How then? The verse says:

淨定有四種，謂即順退分，

The pure absorption has four kinds, namely that accordant with decline,

順住順勝進，順決擇分攝。

That accordant with abiding, with progress, and with penetrating insight.

如次順煩惱，自上地無漏，

In order they accord with afflictions, with its own stage, with the higher stage, with the undefiled,

互相望如次，生二三三一。

Looking at each other, in order, they give rise to two, three, three and one.

論曰：諸淨等至總有四種：一順退分攝、二順住分攝、三順勝進分攝、四順決擇分攝。地各有四，有頂唯三，由彼更無上地可趣故，彼地無有順勝進分攝。於此四中唯第四分能生無漏。所以者何？由此四種有如是相，順退分能順煩惱，順住分能順自地，順勝進分能順上地，順決擇分能順無漏，故諸無漏唯從此生。此四相望互相生者，初能生二，謂順退住。第二生三，除順決擇。第三生三，除順退分。第四生一，謂自非餘。如上所言淨及無漏，皆能上下超至第三。行者如何修超等至？頌曰：

The treatise says: The pure attainments are of four kinds in all: first, that accordant with decline; second, that accordant with abiding; third, that accordant with progress; fourth, that accordant with penetrating insight. Each stage has four, while the Peak of Existence has only three, because there is no higher stage to proceed to, so that stage has no kind accordant with progress. Among the four, only the fourth can give rise to the undefiled. Why? Because these four kinds have the following characteristics: the decline-accordant accords with afflictions, the abiding-accordant accords with its own stage, the progress-accordant accords with the higher stage, and the insight-accordant accords with the undefiled. Hence the undefiled arises only from this one. As for how the four give rise to each other, the first can give rise to two, namely the decline-accordant and the abiding-accordant. The second gives rise to three, excluding the insight-accordant. The third gives rise to three, excluding the decline-accordant. The fourth gives rise to one, namely itself and no other. As said above, both the pure and the undefiled can leap up and down as far as the third. How does one practice and cultivate the leaping attainments? The verse says:

二類定順逆，均間次及超，

Two kinds of absorption, forward and reverse, even, alternating, sequential and leaping,

至間超為成，三洲利無學。

Accomplished through alternating leaps; in the three continents, the sharp, the non-learners.