Cheng Weishi Lun (Treatise on the Establishment of Consciousness-Only), Volume 4

云何無貪？於有、有具，無著為性；對治貪著，作善為業。

What is non-greed? With respect to existence and the means of existence, its nature is non-attachment; it counteracts greed and attachment, and its function is to do good.

云何無瞋？於苦、苦具，無恚為性；對治瞋恚，作善為業。

What is non-hatred? With respect to suffering and the means of suffering, its nature is absence of ill will; it counteracts hatred and ill will, and its function is to do good.

善心起時，隨緣何境，皆於有等，無著、無恚，觀有等立，非要緣彼。如前慚、愧，觀善、惡立，故此二種，俱遍善心。

When a wholesome mind arises, whatever object it takes, it has non-attachment and non-ill-will toward existence and so on; it is established in relation to existence and so on, and does not require taking those as objects. Like shame and embarrassment above, which are established in relation to good and evil, these two kinds both pervade wholesome minds.

云何無痴？於諸理事，明解為性；對治愚痴，作善為業。

What is non-delusion? With respect to all principles and matters, its nature is clear understanding; it counteracts foolish delusion and its function is to do good.

有義：無痴即慧為性。《集論》說：此報、教、證、智決擇為體，生得、聞、思、修所生慧。如次皆是決擇性故。

One view holds: non-delusion takes wisdom as its nature. The Abhidharma-samuccaya says: this takes discrimination through retribution, teaching, realization, and knowledge as its substance, and is the wisdom produced by birth, hearing, reflection, and cultivation. According to this order they are all of the nature of discrimination.

此雖即慧，為顯善品，有勝功能，如煩惱見，故復別說。

Though this is itself wisdom, to show that wholesome qualities have superior function, as with the afflicted view, it is again spoken of separately.

有義：無痴非即是慧，別有自性，正對無明。如無貪、瞋，善根攝故。

One view holds: non-delusion is not itself wisdom, but has a separate self-nature, directly opposed to ignorance. It is like non-greed and non-hatred, because it is subsumed by the wholesome roots.

論說：大悲無瞋、痴攝，非根攝故。若彼無痴，以慧為性，大悲如力等，應慧等根攝。又若無痴無別自性，如不害等，應非實物。便違論說：十一善中，三世俗有，餘皆是實。

The treatise says: great compassion is subsumed by non-hatred and non-delusion, and not by a root. If that non-delusion took wisdom as its nature, great compassion, like the powers and so on, would be subsumed by the root of wisdom and the rest. Moreover, if non-delusion had no separate self-nature, like non-harming and so on, it would not be a real thing. This would contradict the treatise's statement: among the eleven wholesome ones, three are conventionally existent and the rest are all real.

然《集論》說：慧為體者，舉彼因果，顯此自性。如以忍、樂，表「信」自體，理必應爾。

But the Abhidharma-samuccaya says it takes wisdom as its substance; this cites its cause and effect to show its self-nature. Like using acceptance and delight to point to the substance of "faith," by reasoning it must be so.

以貪、瞋、痴六識相應，正煩惱攝。起惡勝故，立不善根。斷彼必由通、別對治。通唯善慧，別即三根。由此無痴必應別有。

Because greed, hatred, and delusion are associated with the six consciousnesses and are subsumed by the principal afflictions, they are superior in giving rise to evil, so the unwholesome roots are established. Cutting them off must be done through common and particular antidotes. The common one is only wholesome wisdom, and the particular are the three roots. From this, non-delusion must exist separately.

勤謂精進，於善、惡品修、斷事中，勇、悍為性；對治懈怠，滿善為業。

Diligence means vigor: in the work of cultivating the wholesome and eliminating the evil, its nature is bravery and tenacity; it counteracts laziness and its function is to fulfill the wholesome.

「勇」表勝進，簡諸染法。「悍」表精純，簡淨無記。即顯精進，唯善性攝。

"Bravery" shows superior advance and excludes defiled dharmas. "Tenacity" shows purity and excludes pure indeterminate states. This shows that diligence is subsumed only by the wholesome nature.

此相差別略有五種。所謂：被甲、加行、無下、無退、無足。

The differences of its characteristic are roughly of five kinds: namely donning the armor, applying effort, not being inferior, not retreating, and not being satisfied.

即經所說：有勢、有勤、有勇、堅猛、不捨善軛，如次應知。

These correspond to what the sutra says: having strength, having diligence, having bravery, being firm and fierce, and not abandoning the yoke of the good; they should be understood in this order.

此五別者，謂初發心、自分、勝進，自分行中，三品別故；或初發心、長時、無間、慇重、無餘，修差別故；或資糧等，五道別故。二乘究竟道，欣大菩提故，諸佛究竟道，樂利樂他故；或二加行、無間、解脫、勝進別故。

The distinctions of the five are: first aspiration, one's own part, and superior advance, because within the conduct of one's own part there are three grades of distinction; or first aspiration, long duration, uninterruptedness, earnestness, and without remainder, being distinctions of cultivation; or because of the distinction of the five paths of accumulation and so on. The final path of the two vehicles is because they aspire to great bodhi; the final path of the Buddhas is because they delight in benefiting and pleasing others; or because of the distinctions of the two preparatory practices, the uninterrupted path, liberation, and superior advance.

「安」謂輕安，遠離麁重，調暢身心，堪任為性；對治惛沈，轉依為業。

"Tranquility" means light ease: it is far from heaviness and coarseness, harmonizes body and mind, and its nature is to be fit for use; it counteracts torpor and its function is to transform the basis.

謂此伏除能障定法，令所依止，轉安適故。

That is, this can subdue and remove the dharmas that obstruct meditation, and make the basis of support transform into comfort.

「不放逸」者：精進、三根，於所斷、修，防、修為性；對治放逸，成滿一切世、出世間善事為業。

"Non-negligence": diligence and the three roots, with respect to what is to be abandoned and cultivated, have as nature guarding and cultivating; it counteracts negligence, and its function is to complete and fulfill all worldly and supramundane good deeds.

謂即四法，於斷修事，皆能防、修，名不放逸。非別有體，無異相故。於防惡事、修善事中，離四功能，無別用故。雖信、慚等，亦有此能，而方彼四，勢用微劣；非根、遍策，故非此依。

That is, precisely these four dharmas, with regard to abandoning and cultivating, can guard and cultivate, and this is called non-negligence. It does not have a separate substance, since there is no different characteristic. In guarding against evil and cultivating good, apart from the functions of the four dharmas, there is no separate use. Though faith, shame, and so on also have this ability, compared with those four their force is slight and inferior; they are not roots and not universally urging, so they are not its basis.

豈不防、修是此相用？

Are guarding and cultivating not the characteristic and function of this?

防、修何異精進、三根？

How do guarding and cultivating differ from diligence and the three roots?

彼要待此，方有作用。

Those would have to wait for this in order to have function.

此應復待餘，便有無窮失。

This would again have to wait for another, and there would be the fault of infinite regress.

勤唯遍策，根但為依，如何說彼有防、修用？

Diligence is only universally urging, and the roots only act as supports; how can one say those have the function of guarding and cultivating?

汝防、修用，其相云何？

What is the aspect of the function of guarding and cultivating that you speak of?

若普依持，即無貪等。若遍策錄，不異精進。止惡、進善，即總四法。令不散亂，應是等持。令同取境，與觸何別？令不忘失，即應是念。

If it is universally supporting, it is just non-greed and so on. If it is universally urging and checking, it is no different from diligence. Stopping evil and advancing good is just the four dharmas together. If it makes the mind not scattered, it should be concentration. If it makes them take the same object, how does it differ from contact? If it makes them not forget, it should be mindfulness.

如是推尋不放逸用，離無貪等，竟不可得。故不放逸，定無別體。

Thus, searching for the function of non-negligence, apart from non-greed and the rest, one can never find it. Therefore non-negligence definitely has no separate substance.

云何「行捨」？精進、三根，令心平等、正直、無功用住為性；對治掉舉，靜住為業。

What is "equanimity of practice"? Diligence and the three roots make the mind equal, upright, and dwelling without effort as its nature; it counteracts agitation, and its function is to dwell in stillness.

謂即四法，令心遠離掉舉等障，靜住名捨。平等、正直、無功用住，初、中、後位，辯捨差別。由不放逸先除雜染；捨復令心寂靜而住。

That is, precisely these four dharmas make the mind free from obstacles such as agitation and dwell in stillness, and this is called equanimity. "Equal, upright, and dwelling without effort" distinguishes the differences of equanimity in the initial, middle, and final stages. Through non-negligence, defilements are first removed; and equanimity again makes the mind dwell in quiescence.

此無別體，如不放逸，離彼四法，無相、用故。能令寂靜，即四法故；所令寂靜，即心等故。

This has no separate substance, like non-negligence, because apart from those four dharmas it has no characteristic or function. That which can make quiescent is the four dharmas; that which is made quiescent is the mind and so on.

云何「不害」？於諸有情，不為損惱，無瞋為性；能對治害，悲愍為業。

What is "non-harming"? With respect to all sentient beings, not causing injury or vexation; its nature is non-hatred; it counteracts harming, and its function is compassion and pity.

謂即無瞋，於有情所，不為損惱，假名不害。

That is, it is just non-hatred; with respect to sentient beings, not causing injury or vexation is provisionally called non-harming.

無瞋，翻對斷物命瞋；不害，正違損惱物害。無瞋與樂；不害拔苦。是謂此二麁相差別。

Non-hatred is the opposite of hatred that takes the life of beings; non-harming directly opposes harm that injures beings. Non-hatred gives happiness; non-harming removes suffering. This speaks of the coarse difference between the two.

理實無瞋實有自體；不害依彼一分假立。為顯慈、悲，二相別故。利樂有情，彼二勝故。

By true principle, non-hatred has a real substance; non-harming is provisionally established on a part of that. To show the distinction of the two aspects of kindness and compassion, and because they benefit and delight sentient beings, those two are superior.

有說：不害非即無瞋，別有自體，謂賢善性。此相云何？謂不損惱。無瞋亦爾，寧別有性？謂於有情不為損惱，慈悲賢善，是無瞋故。

Some say: non-harming is not simply non-hatred but has a separate substance, namely a worthy and good nature. What is this characteristic? It is non-injury. Non-hatred is also like this, so how can there be a separate nature? That is, toward sentient beings not causing injury or vexation, kindness, compassion, and goodness are just non-hatred.

「及」顯十一，義別心所，謂欣、厭等善心所法。雖義有別，說種種名，而體無異，故不別立。

"And" shows that beyond the eleven, there are other mental factors in meaning, namely wholesome mental factor dharmas such as delight and disgust. Though they are distinct in meaning and called by various names, their substance is not different, so they are not established separately.

欣謂欲俱，無瞋一分，於所欣境，不憎恚故。

Delight means the part of non-hatred that arises with desire, because toward the object delighted in one has no hatred or ill will.

不忿、恨、惱、嫉等亦然；隨應正翻瞋一分故。

Non-anger, non-resentment, non-vexation, non-envy, and so on are likewise; because they correspond to a part that is directly opposite to hatred.

厭謂慧俱無貪一分，於所厭境，不染著故。

Disgust means the part of non-greed that arises with wisdom, because toward the object one is disgusted with, one has no defiled attachment.

不慳、憍等，當知亦然。隨應正翻，貪一分故。

Non-stinginess, non-arrogance, and so on should be known to be likewise, because they correspond to a part that is directly opposite to greed.

不覆、誑、諂無貪、痴一分；隨應正翻，貪、痴一分故。

Non-concealment, non-deceit, and non-flattery are parts of non-greed and non-delusion; because they correspond to a part directly opposite to greed and delusion.

有義：不覆唯無痴一分；無處說覆亦貪一分故。

One view holds: non-concealment is only a part of non-delusion; because nowhere is it said that concealment is also a part of greed.

有義：不慢信一分攝，謂若信彼，不慢彼故。有義：不慢捨一分攝，心平等者，不高慢故。有義：不慢慚一分攝，若崇重彼，不慢彼故。

One view holds: non-pride is subsumed in a part of faith, meaning if one has faith in that, one is not proud toward it. One view holds: non-pride is subsumed in a part of equanimity, because one whose mind is equal is not high and proud. One view holds: non-pride is subsumed in a part of shame, because if one esteems that, one is not proud toward it.

有義：不疑即信所攝，謂若信彼，無猶豫故。有義：不疑：即正勝解，以決定者，無猶豫故。有義：不疑即正慧攝，以正見者，無猶豫故。

One view holds: non-doubt is subsumed in faith, meaning if one has faith in that, one has no hesitation. One view holds: non-doubt is right resolve, because one who is decided has no hesitation. One view holds: non-doubt is subsumed in right wisdom, because one who has right view has no hesitation.

不散亂體，即正定攝。正見、正知，俱善慧攝。不忘念者，即是正念。

The substance of non-distraction is subsumed in right concentration. Right view and right knowing are both subsumed in wholesome wisdom. Non-forgetfulness is right mindfulness.

悔、眠、尋、伺，通染、不染，如觸、欲等，無別翻對。

Regret, drowsiness, investigation, and analysis may be defiled or not defiled, like contact, desire, and so on, and have no separate opposites.

何緣諸染所翻善中，有別建立，有不爾者？

Why, among the wholesome opposites of the various defilements, are some established separately and some not?

相、用別者，便別立之；餘善不然，故不應責。又諸染法遍六識者，勝故翻之，別立善法。慢等、忿等，唯意識俱。害雖亦然，而數現起損惱他故；障無上乘勝因悲故；為了知彼增上過失，翻立不害。失念、散亂及不正知，翻入別境，善中不說。

Those with distinct characteristics and functions are established separately; the other wholesome ones are not like this, so one should not raise the question. Moreover, defiled dharmas that pervade the six consciousnesses are opposed because of their superior nature, and wholesome dharmas are established separately. Pride, anger, and so on are associated only with mind-consciousness. Though harm is also like this, it is because it repeatedly arises and injures others; because it obstructs the compassion that is the superior cause of the unsurpassed vehicle; in order to know its great fault, non-harming is established as its opposite. Loss of mindfulness, distraction, and lack of right knowledge are opposites that enter the object-specific, and are not mentioned among the wholesome.

染、淨相翻，淨寧少染？

Defiled and pure are opposites; why are the pure fewer than the defiled?

淨勝染劣，少敵多故。又解理通，說多同體，迷情事局，隨相分多。故於染、淨，不應齊責。

Because the pure is superior and the defiled inferior, the few can counter the many. Moreover, understanding principle is universal, so many are said to share one substance; delusion of feeling is localized to particular matters, and follows aspects so is many. So one should not make equal demands in the case of defiled and pure.

此十一法，三是假有，謂不放逸、捨及不害，義如前說。餘八實有，相、用別故。

Of these eleven dharmas, three are conventionally existent, namely non-negligence, equanimity, and non-harming, with the meaning as explained above. The other eight are real, because their characteristics and functions are distinct.

有義：十一四遍善心，精進、三根，遍善品故。餘七不定。

One view holds: among the eleven, four pervade wholesome minds: diligence and the three roots, because they pervade wholesome qualities. The other seven are not fixed.

推尋事理，未決定時，不生信故。慚、愧同類，依處各別，隨起一時，第二無故。要世間道斷煩惱時，有輕安故。不放逸、捨，無漏道時，方得起故。悲愍有情時，乃有不害故。

When investigating matters and principles and not yet decided, faith does not arise. Shame and embarrassment are of the same kind but depend on different bases, and when one arises at a time, the second is absent. Tranquility exists only when the worldly path cuts off afflictions. Non-negligence and equanimity arise only in the path without outflows. Non-harming exists only when one has compassion for sentient beings.

論說：十一六位中起。謂決定位，有信相應。止息染時，有慚、愧起，顧自、他故。於善品位，有精進、三根。世間道時，有輕安起，於出世道，有捨、不放逸。攝眾生時，有不害故。

The treatise says: the eleven arise in six states. In the stage of decision, faith is associated. When stopping defilements, shame and embarrassment arise, because of regard for oneself and others. In the wholesome stage there are diligence and the three roots. In the worldly path, tranquility arises; in the supramundane path there are equanimity and non-negligence. When gathering beings there is non-harming.

有義：彼說未為應理。推尋事理，未決定心，信若不生，應非是善。如染心等，無淨信故。

One view holds: these statements are not yet reasonable. When investigating matters and principles, in a mind not yet decided, if faith does not arise, it should not be wholesome. Like defiled minds and the like, there would be no pure faith.

慚、愧類異，依別境同，俱遍善心，前已說故。

Shame and embarrassment differ in kind and depend on different bases but have the same object, and both pervade wholesome minds, as explained above.

若出世道輕安不生，應此覺支非無漏故。

If tranquility did not arise in the supramundane path, this factor of awakening would not be free of outflows.

若世間道無捨、不放逸，應非寂靜防惡修善故；又應不伏掉、放逸故。有漏善心既具四法，如出世道應有二故。

If the worldly path had no equanimity and non-negligence, they would not be tranquil in guarding against evil and cultivating good; and they should not be able to subdue agitation and negligence. Since wholesome minds with outflows already have the four dharmas, like the supramundane path they should have these two.

善心起時，皆不損物，違能損法，有不害故。

When a wholesome mind arises, it does not harm beings and opposes harmful dharmas, so non-harming exists.

論說：「六位起十一」者，依彼彼增，作此此說。故彼所說，定非應理。

The treatise says: "in the six states, the eleven arise," speaking according to each one's superiority. Therefore what they say is definitely not reasonable.